Bush The Liberator

saveuplife

There's a number of you responding and I know most of you dislike BUsh... personally, I'm not a big fan either... but, I'll respond...

Look at it this way, he said infront of the American public... he would not allow an attack of that nature to happen again under his watch and it did not. He did a good job of handling 9/11 (an attack on our soil) in terms of domestic security, he ensured it didn't happen again. That's just a fact. We did not get attacked again or atleast they didn't succeed in attacking us again.

unifiedscene

saveuplife wrote:

There's a number of you responding and I know most of you dislike BUsh... personally, I'm not a big fan either... but, I'll respond...

Look at it this way, he said infront of the American public... he would not allow an attack of that nature to happen again under his watch and it did not. He did a good job of handling 9/11 (an attack on our soil) in terms of domestic security, he ensured it didn't happen again. That's just a fact. We did not get attacked again or atleast they didn't succeed in attacking us again.

But we don't know if they've even tried, so there's no way to say that what he did actually had any effect on whether or not we were attacked again. And the international instability it has caused has given us short term security at the expense of a more dangerous future down the line.

g under p

MrBrian wrote:

All this talk of how History will judge Bush, what about how history will judge the American public?

After 9/11 many many many Americans decided to line up and blindly follow Bush. That's just fact.

The flags came out, bumper stickers with 'pride' and 'america' were stuck on cars.

Any criticism someone had of American policy was considered 'anti american' or 'pro terrorist'

It was like the act of 'thinking' was looked at as a negative thing. "How dare you question our government!...we lost 3.000 people!"

Anyone remember how sport stadiums filled with fans cheered when they announced that America started the attack on afghanistan?

Or when some Americans called for 'peace and understanding' they were booed!

Sure now it's easy for people to bad mouth Bush, but at the start. He had your support and you asked no questions! Again, not everyone, but a very very large majority of people.

I certainly wasn't one of them. From the very beginning the whole thing stunk and I wasn't and didn't buy into any of it. I saw how blindly Americans were swelling this patriotism hook line and sinker. Here in DC I was given stickers of flags and God Bless America I told them no thanks. America is not the only country in the entire world God Bless the whole planet.

In Nov/Dec of 2001 when Bin Laden fell off the map and was hardly ever mentioned again I knew our government was up to no good and no American patriotic symbols were going to worn by me.

However, now I have my flag in my truck just in time when others have long ago abandoned their American symbol-isms.

A

digster

saveuplife wrote:

There's a number of you responding and I know most of you dislike BUsh... personally, I'm not a big fan either... but, I'll respond...

Look at it this way, he said infront of the American public... he would not allow an attack of that nature to happen again under his watch and it did not. He did a good job of handling 9/11 (an attack on our soil) in terms of domestic security, he ensured it didn't happen again. That's just a fact. We did not get attacked again or atleast they didn't succeed in attacking us again.

It's a fair point. Probably the most difficult part of analyzing a President's national security competence is when trying to analyze how good he and his administration are at analyzing intelligence and acting on it, simply because we don't know the intelligence. We don't know what the intelligence has been for the most part in the past eight years, we don't know how Bush and co. acted on it, we don't know what effect that had, etc. Really, the only public analysis of intelligence we have is in regards to Iraq, and we all know how that went. So what I'm trying to say is that judging Bush based on his record of intelligence analysis and acting on it (preventing attacks, etc), is mostly conjecture, since we just don't know. And while some like you see a lack of attacks since 9/11 on U.S. soil and state that this probably means that Bush was competent in analyzing and acting on intelligence, others see Bush's complete (perceived) incompetence in practically every other area of governance, and say that due to all the evidence to the contrary, maybe this hasn't necessarily been due to Bush's competence in this area. Either way, people can still never know for sure. I can only judge Bush on what I know. And what I know isn't good.

saveuplife

unifiedscene wrote:

But we don't know if they've even tried, so there's no way to say that what he did actually had any effect on whether or not we were attacked again. And the international instability it has caused has given us short term security at the expense of a more dangerous future down the line.

Personally, I recall the amount of "analysts" on TV and how they all claimed we'd be attacked multiple times again within the next few years.... we did not. He did something right.

If you can not grant Bush that.... I don't know what to say. His method may have been misguided, but the domestic security result was efficient. So, I, personally, think he did a reasonably good job in certain areas.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

saveuplife wrote:

There's a number of you responding and I know most of you dislike BUsh... personally, I'm not a big fan either... but, I'll respond...

Look at it this way, he said infront of the American public... he would not allow an attack of that nature to happen again under his watch and it did not. He did a good job of handling 9/11 (an attack on our soil) in terms of domestic security, he ensured it didn't happen again. That's just a fact. We did not get attacked again or atleast they didn't succeed in attacking us again.

I guess that's why all those people were able to bring whatever they wanted to on the various airlines afterwards and no one ha d a clue.

gimme a break...

unifiedscene

saveuplife wrote:

Personally, I recall the amount of "analysts" on TV and how they all claimed we'd be attacked multiple times again within the next few years.... we did not. He did something right.

If you can not grant Bush that.... I don't know what to say. His method may have been misguided, but the domestic security result was efficient. So, I, personally, think he did a reasonably good job in certain areas.

You're kidding right? The analysts still say that. We've got out color coded warning system, and it hasn't been anything but orange since the day it began. That just makes for good news and covers political ass in case something happens. There was only one attack on Clinton's watch and one on dubya's, and none for the 50 years before that. Does that mean they were all brilliant defense tacticians?

All Bush has done is give the illusion of safety. His actions haven't done anything to make us safer. The domestic security result was no better than anyone else. Do you think Clinton did a good job because after the first WTC attack we weren't attacked again until Bush's watch?

saveuplife

unifiedscene wrote:

You're kidding right? The analysts still say that. We've got out color coded warning system, and it hasn't been anything but orange since the day it began. That just makes for good news and covers political ass in case something happens. There was only one attack on Clinton's watch and one on dubya's, and none for the 50 years before that. Does that mean they were all brilliant defense tacticians?

All Bush has done is give the illusion of safety. His actions haven't done anything to make us safer. The domestic security result was no better than anyone else. Do you think Clinton did a good job because after the first WTC attack we weren't attacked again until Bush's watch?

No, I'm not kidding at all.

Trying to compare 9/11 to the 1st WTC attack is like trying to compare a gnat bite to a shark bite. First, the attacks weren't the same. Second, the scale wasn't the same. Third, the results weren't the same. Fourth, the perpetrators weren't the same. Fifth, the domestic reaction wasn't the same. Sixth, the international reaction wasn't the same. Comparing the two is nonsense. THe only event that comes close to that day is Pearl Harbor.

g under p

unifiedscene wrote:

You're kidding right? The analysts still say that. We've got out color coded warning system, and it hasn't been anything but orange since the day it began. That just makes for good news and covers political ass in case something happens. There was only one attack on Clinton's watch and one on dubya's, and none for the 50 years before that. Does that mean they were all brilliant defense tacticians?

All Bush has done is give the illusion of safety. His actions haven't done anything to make us safer. The domestic security result was no better than anyone else. Do you think Clinton did a good job because after the first WTC attack we weren't attacked again until Bush's watch?

Kinda makes one wonder that under Bush's watch 9/II was allowed to happen to push forth set agenda. That wouldn't be surprising.

A

g under p

saveuplife wrote:

No, I'm not kidding at all.

Trying to compare 9/11 to the 1st WTC attack is like trying to compare a gnat bite to a shark bite. First, the attacks weren't the same. Second, the scale wasn't the same. Third, the results weren't the same. Fourth, the perpetrators weren't the same. Fifth, the domestic reaction wasn't the same. Sixth, the international reaction wasn't the same. Comparing the two is nonsense. THe only event that comes close to that day is Pearl Harbor.

......and we knew the Japanese were coming ever wonder why our most important ships were NOT in Pearl Harbour. That would be our AIR CRAFT Carrier group, all out to sea at the time of the attack.

Peace

unifiedscene

saveuplife wrote:

No, I'm not kidding at all.

Trying to compare 9/11 to the 1st WTC attack is like trying to compare a gnat bite to a shark bite. First, the attacks weren't the same. Second, the scale wasn't the same. Third, the results weren't the same. Fourth, the perpetrators weren't the same. Fifth, the domestic reaction wasn't the same. Sixth, the international reaction wasn't the same. Comparing the two is nonsense. THe only event that comes close to that day is Pearl Harbor.

So? It was a terrorist attack that occurred on American soil. If an attack occurred tomorrow would you still say Bush was doing a good job on national defense because at least he kept the exact same attack on the same scale with same results and same perpetrators etc etc from happening again? You don't get points on defense by saying "well, he kept us safe from the exact same attack happening again, but how was he to know they'd try something different?" That's ridiculous. Bush and Clinton both had one attack on American soil that was not repeated. Prior to that, there were none... how much of this really has to do with defense policy protecting us and how much has to do with real efforts to perpetrate such attacks on our soil?

saveuplife

g under p wrote:

......and we knew the Japanese were coming ever wonder why our most important ships were NOT in Pearl Harbour. That would be our AIR CRAFT Carrier group, all out to sea at the time of the attack.

Peace

Conspiracy theorist... I am not.

saveuplife

unifiedscene wrote:

So? It was a terrorist attack that occurred on American soil. If an attack occurred tomorrow would you still say Bush was doing a good job on national defense because at least he kept the exact same attack on the same scale with same results and same perpetrators etc etc from happening again? You don't get points on defense by saying "well, he kept us safe from the exact same attack happening again, but how was he to know they'd try something different?" That's ridiculous. Bush and Clinton both had one attack on American soil that was not repeated. Prior to that, there were none... how much of this really has to do with defense policy protecting us and how much has to do with real efforts to perpetrate such attacks on our soil?

If an attack happened tomorrow on our soil, I wouldn't say he did as good of a job.

But, once again, the attacks are not comparable. I'm not alone in that assessment.

Another attack on our country did not occur for seven years after the largest attack in our country's history under Bush's watch. That's a simple fact, and IMHO he deserves credit for that even from people who think he did a terrible job elsewhere. The only person who can be compared to Bush in this regard (domestic security post-9/11), will be the next President.

Personally, I think Clinton did an awful job recognizing 9/11 was coming. I think Bush did as well. That said, the alteration in domestic security policy was ridiculously apparent under Bush and once again no attack transpired after that alteration. I give him credit for that, and I think any objective/fair-thinking individual would do the same.

g under p

saveuplife wrote:

Conspiracy theorist... I am not.

Good for you

Peace

MrBrian

g under p wrote:

I certainly wasn't one of them. From the very beginning the whole thing stunk and I wasn't and didn't buy into any of it. I saw how blindly Americans were swelling this patriotism hook line and sinker. Here in DC I was given stickers of flags and God Bless America I told them no thanks. America is not the only country in the entire world God Bless the whole planet.

In Nov/Dec of 2001 when Bin Laden fell off the map and was hardly ever mentioned again I knew our government was up to no good and no American patriotic symbols were going to worn by me.

However, now I have my flag in my truck just in time when others have long ago abandoned their American symbol-isms.

A

It's good to hear that you didnt fall in line.
---

You know I always wondered about those 'God Bless America' stickers, I mean how weird is that? It would make more sense if it said 'God bless the whole planet'

I think the worst stickers were the ones that said 'Power Of Pride' with the american flag in the back. Those didnt make any sense.

They wouldve made more sense if it read 'The power of Ignorance' with the 'pride' having a red line across it.

Commy

saveuplife wrote:

Conspiracy theorist... I am not.

"Conspiracy theory"-term used to discredit institutional analysis.

pearljamfan1212

you make great points saveuplife and you are certainly taking a beating for your beliefs. I tend to agree with what you are saying.

Bush handled 9/11 extremely well. I love how people want to sit here and judge him for sitting in the classroom for a few extra minutes. it was the first time since pearl harbor that we were attacked on our own soil. I would have needed a few minutes to gather my thoughts too.

a good question... would Iraq be better off today with Saddam in power?.......with one of his brutal sons in line to take over for the next 30 years when Saddam eventually died?

can you honestly answer yes to that question?

fuck

pearljamfan1212 wrote:

Bush handled 9/11 extremely well. I love how people want to sit here and judge him for sitting in the classroom for a few extra minutes. it was the first time since pearl harbor that we were attacked on our own soil. I would have needed a few minutes to gather my thoughts too.

then you would be a horrible president. When you find out we're attacked, you get the fuck up and leave. It's that simple. but that's not why he handled 9/11 poorly. unless you agree that:
- creating one of the worst cases of racial profiling in history
- signing in the PATRIOT ACT
- invading and occupying Afghanistan, while knowingly killing civilians
- invading and occupying Iraq, while knowingly killing civilians
- limiting freedom to anyone who may be Arab or Muslim
...are ok then you really can't say he handled it well. And if you actually think those are ok, then I really don't have any more to say to you. Also, honestly, you probably aren't Arab or Muslim and haven't witnessed how horrible life really got for millions of people after 9/11.

No, Bush handled it horrendously.

a good question... would Iraq be better off today with Saddam in power?.......with one of his brutal sons in line to take over for the next 30 years when Saddam eventually died?

yes. feel free to ask an Iraqi, as well, since the majority feel the same way.

pearljamfan1212

_outlaw wrote:

then you would be a horrible president. When you find out we're attacked, you get the fuck up and leave. It's that simple.

here we go again little guy. you need to learn to accept that people have different opinion then you. when you become an adult one day, you will realize that people simply agree to disagree.

we are talking about Bush's first reaction when being told we were under attack. its a matter of opinion. neither of us are right or wrong. do you understand that concept?

_outlaw wrote:

but that's not why he handled 9/11 poorly. unless you agree that:

ok lets go..

_outlaw wrote:

- creating one of the worst cases of racial profiling in history

yes I do agree with this

_outlaw wrote:

- signing in the PATRIOT ACT

not the way its currently written but some of the bill I agree with.

_outlaw wrote:

- invading and occupying Afghanistan,

yes

_outlaw wrote:

while knowingly killing civilians

no

_outlaw wrote:

- invading and occupying Iraq, while knowingly killing civilians

no

_outlaw wrote:

- limiting freedom to anyone who may be Arab or Muslim

:rolleyes: uh huh

_outlaw wrote:

...are ok then you really can't say he handled it well. And if you actually think those are ok, then I really don't have any more to say to you. Also, honestly, you probably aren't Arab or Muslim and haven't witnessed how horrible life really got for millions of people after 9/11.

so its my fault that musilm extremist attacked my country?

_outlaw wrote:

yes. feel free to ask an Iraqi, as well, since the majority feel the same way.

depends which Iraqi you ask. Saddam performed genocide on many of his own people and made people live in complete fear for those who opposed him. and to say his sons would have made life better is ridiculous. that leads me to believe you have no idea about who those men were.

saveuplife

pearljamfan1212 wrote:

you make great points saveuplife and you are certainly taking a beating for your beliefs. I tend to agree with what you are saying.

Bush handled 9/11 extremely well. I love how people want to sit here and judge him for sitting in the classroom for a few extra minutes. it was the first time since pearl harbor that we were attacked on our own soil. I would have needed a few minutes to gather my thoughts too.

a good question... would Iraq be better off today with Saddam in power?.......with one of his brutal sons in line to take over for the next 30 years when Saddam eventually died?

can you honestly answer yes to that question?

Thank you. I am use to getting beat up for having the minority opinion here. I realize this board is incredibly left-leaning and I am OK with that. That said, I also know that my stance on this issue is the majority opinion in America.

As for your question, I do not believe Iraq would be better off today with Saddam/his sons in power. That said, I do not know for sure. Once again, I don't think someone can properly answer that question yet because we don't know what Iraq will become and whether the sacrafices made were worthwhile. At this point, I'd hedge to say yes they are better off and I think that will only become more apparent as time passes. But, IMHO only time will tell for sure. Moreover, the end result being a plus... does not necessarily make the action (pre-emtive strike) a plus because it rationalizes pre-emtive action in the future by other countries. The entire "Iraq" situation is tricky.