Khadaji: What do you think the OP was trying to write, when he wrote i.e.?
My guess is re:
Anybody?
Nt that I have any interest in participating in a thread whise only objective is to bash the president but
has to be one of the stupidest arguments I have heard. If this is anything to judge by President Bush is the first and only president who had the worst terrorist attack in American history.
Saying he is good because it didn’t happen again is like saying Clinton was good because he was only impeached once. It makes no sense.
Yes that is what I was thinking. I speak Spanish most of the time and sometimes my English fails me.
The popular vote was to abstain. Most of the country didn’t give enough of a shit to show up and vote.
If the majority of non-voters would have supported Gore you might as well say they got what the deserve for failing to excercise their franchise. If the majority would have supported Bush then you can as easily say the true majority is represented.
That having been said. Hussein’s downfall will eventually assist in bringing stability to the region if we stay on track and don’t pullout too soon and don’t hand the nation over to more bully boys. Thats good for the U.S. It also shows that we are not a paper tiger, good for us too. And while not the best thing for opur nation directly we eventually kept our promise of more than a decade to liberate the nation from Saddam. Something we failed to do for our native allies in Viet Nam. Regardless of if we should have gotten involved there or not, we made promises and many natives laid down their lives on the basis of those promises. Just like the Montangyards of Cambodia and Viet Nam.
We will never get rational understanding from fanatics. But those who fund them are usually smart enough to see how the hand is dealt and will likely think better of involving themselves in harboring or funding terrorists who threaten our interests. Sure it would be nice if we could all be friends and I admire the people who think that is possible, but I’m bogged down by the reality that there will never be a lasting peace based on mutual understanding and therefore realize that the only peace we can attain for the here and now is one based on the potential of retaliation and force.
Plus Gore is so boring, half the stand up acts in the nation would be out of work if he had been in office.
That’s ridiculous. The attack happened after Bush had been in office only a few months. No policies had been enacted that you could point to and say, “if Bush hadn’t done that, the attacks might not have happened”. The attacks could have happened under Clinton. It’s just luck that it got dumped in Bush’s lap.
So what matters is how he responded to those attacks. And it’s not like what he did was automatic - Clinton and Reagan both responded to numerous horrible attacks against Americans with feckless responses. 241 Marines were killed in a bombing in Beirut, and Reagan’s response was to pull out of Lebanon. The first WTC attack that happened under Clinton could have killed FAR more people. Subsequent investigation showed that if the Ryder truck had been positioned better in the parkade, it would have brought the towers down almost instantly, and there would have been at least 10,000 dead. His response was to treat it as a criminal act instead of an organized act of terrorism.
Bush, on the other hand, instituted sweeping reforms of security, and overthrew the governments of two different countries. Half the leadership of al-Qaida is dead or captured, and the rest are on the run. There is no safe harbor, and much of the financiing has been stopped and/or frozen.
Now, that doesn’t mean that it’s impossible there won’t be an attack. But certainly you can point to many, many successes in the war on terror. And the fact is, there hasn’t been another major attack in the U.S. Do you think that would have been the case if the U.S. had, say, just warned the Taliban, blown up a few caves from the air, and then went home and tried to forget about the whole thing?
And yes, 15 billion for AIDS in Africa (bill signed last week) is far, far more than any predecessor has done.
Bush is a ‘transformational’ President. Some presidents take office and just try to tinker with the world as it is. They maintain the system. But some come along and kick it in the ass and make sweeping changes. FDR was a transformational President. So was Lincoln. And Reagan. Bush I was a maintenance guy. Clinton tried to be a transformational president, coming into power with ideas for sweeping reforms. But for whatever reason, he never achieved much.
Bush has created a new cabinet department. He is trying for sweeping reforms of the international scene. He has built a new doctrine for U.S. engagement in the world. He is trying to transform NASA. He wants to move the U.S. to a hydrogen economy. These are huge visions. Sweeping changes. Not all of them will work, and not all of them may be good ideas. But the fact is, he has had a HUGE effect on the world. Startlingly so given that he’s only had little more than 1/2 of a term in office so far.
As to whether he has benefitted the majority of Americans… Doesn’t his 70+% approval rating suggest that at least the majority of Americans think so? You may be in the morning and hate him with a raging passion, but that doesn’t make you right. The fact is, the ‘red states’ are ecstatic with Bush. Republicans approve of him in the high 90% range. Independents approve of him 2-1. Even some Democrats like the job he’s done. The only way to get 70% approval ratings is to gain support across the spectrum.
I always enjoy reading Sam Stone’s posts because I agree with him. Fact is, living in Paris - most everybody hates the guy (Bush, not Sam). The French think he is an idiot (but then look at their guy and tell me they have the moral high ground :rolleyes: ), the Americans that live here, in general but not all, tend to be more liberal and don’t like him either. But whether you agree with his policies or not, one thing is that he generally does what he says he is going to do. We don’t live with a straw-poll President any more - and that rattles a few people who used to shake the cage to get their way. War on Terror - a long process of getting rid of terrorists, not just a little PR and forgotten about when support drops below 50%. There are many examples of this and all of the USA is benefitting from the focus on clear choices and not fluttering in the wind.
Winning a war is the only way to get those type of approval ratings. His pre-war ratings were in the 50% range. Bush the 1st had 80% approval ratings after his war but within 8 short months it was down around 40%. Time will tell if history repeats itself.
Oh certainly, that is why Tony Blair and Bush were considered for Nobel prizes for the war in Iraq.
Well, they were/are being considered for the prize. Not that there is anything to be proud of, winning (or being nominated for) the same prize as Arafat and Carter.
What State do you live in? The latest federal budget is sending 900m to Pennsylvania. This will delay tax & spend Ed Rendell from passing the tax increase he wanted pass me.
As for what has W done to benefit most Americans? The world now understands that we are not a paper tiger. The world also knows that we will no longer wait for them to come with us before we act.
Well, there are all those stories about how he refused to take the briefings seriously. There also is the constant stalling of the Congressional investigation, a year and a half later. “Ridiculous”? We shall see. But you don’t know.
Your earlier statement that it hasn’t happened tp America since ignores the “collateral damage” in the later explosions in Saudi Arabia and Morocco. It’s a global problem affecting people globally, including Americans. Now, do you think the threat is under control?
And invade Grenada 48 hours later. Only the most heavily self-filtering idolatrists think that was appropriate.
Your imagination at work.
These are not unalloyed good things. You yourself have admitted, in a thread you started, that Ashcroft’s security system is dangerous to society and the world. Now you’re calling that “reform”? And are you serious about overthrowing governments being a good thing, even if you don’t want to get into having to lie to get it done?
Yet somehow they’re still able to blow things up.
This isn’t the thread, but always, always read the fine print. Note that the bulk of the money isn’t, according to some reports new, but simply transferred from other programs for humanitarian aid in Africa. Really addressing the problem, or window-dressing?
Fair enough - but only a good thing if used for good ends. That, as you must realize, is not a given.
By reshuffling the org chart - a traditional management method to create the appearance of progress. Ah, for the days when conservatives were against new bureaucracies … They passed away along with the idea that budgets should be balanced, apparently. Somehow they decided the opposite when it became their responsibility, huh?
He is trying, yes, but succeeding? And in what way?
[quote]
He is trying to transform NASA.
[quote]
Doubtful, based on actions rather than words.
C’mon now. Do you think he could explain that in more than 3 unscripted sentences, including why it isn’t a disguised subsidy to Big Oil?
All made possible by “hitting the trifecta”, too.
I don’t have much to add to your comments. You hate George Bush. We all know that. Anything good he’s done, you don’t think he’s serious about. Anything ambiguous, you’re unwilling to give him credit for. That’s fine. The thread asked for some examples. I provided them. Your partisan mileage may vary.
But I do want to address this:
When Bush met Clinton during the transition, Clinton apparently told him, “Your administration is going to be consumed by one thing - a war against terrorism.”
That means Clinton already knew it was a huge problem. Had known it for years. And yet, what did he do? What actions of Clinton’s can you point to and say, “This made Americans safer from terrorism”?
Yet Bush comes into office, and within a few months there is a terrorist attack. If Bush was lax in taking the threat seriously, then the same criticism can be levelled at Clinton, eight times over.
There is a HUGE difference between being able to mount a suicide attack in the middle east, and being able to get a couple of dozen people into the United States and keep them funded and hidden for months while you plan an attack on major institutes of power.
There will always be truck bombs. There will always be nutcases with rifles in towers. There will always be people willing to kill themselves for a cause. This can’t be stopped. But what CAN be stopped is the potential scale of those attacks. Is al-Qaida still capable of launching a mission like the WTC attack? It required 19 people inside the U.S., coordination with many different groups, false IDs, training, and something like $800,000 in cash to fund those people. That’s a far cry from a suicide bomber in the middle east with a few pounds of home-made explosives strapped to his body.
I don’t know that the Bush administration has been totally successful. I don’t know if al-Qaida still has the capability of launching such an attack. And I don’t even know how you can tell that you’ve ‘won’.
However, we do know that al-Qaida’s capabilities have been seriously degraded. And we know that they haven’t managed such an attack since 9/11. And we also know that the Bush administration is largely responsible for that.
Emphasis mine.
I didn’t claim that the popular vote selected the president. My point was that since Gore received more votes I don’t see how Bush’s victory over Gore benefitted the majority of the people. More voters wanted Gore to be the president. Bush certainly wasn’t viewed as the best person by a majority.
A majority hasn’t elected a President since Bush I.
But you’ll see a majority in 2004.
Neither of them had an attack on the scale of 9/11. As such, complaining about their responses being ‘feckless’ is stating that they should have responded similarly despite dissimilar circumstances. They had no basis for acting similarly, lacking the international support.
I hate to tell you this, but an organized act of terrorism is a criminal act. Nothing else.
Bush enacted sweeping reforms of security none of which would have caught the perpetrators of 9/11. Al Qaeda still has plenty of safe harbors, both in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and has brought several powerful new allies into the boat.
You can? Which one? The success of making Gulbuddin Hekmatyar join ranks with the Taliban and Al Qaeda? Or the success of making people flock into the arms of militant organisations?
No, I would say that that fact is totally meaningless and proves nothing at all. There have been plenty of attacks during that time. Given the fact that the 9/11 attackers organized in Europe, the fact that no such attack has happened since then, if anything, shows something about successes in Europe, where Al Qaeda members have already been convicted, and numerous others arrested by ordinary law enforcement, without any rounding up of the usual suspects.
And to hell with anyone who doesn’t want to be transformed. You’re either a willing subject or you will get to feel to full might of the US?
So much for being for small government.
I wouldn’t call it reforms what he is doing.
I see. So if a new drug dealer comes to town, live bullets flying at everyone who stands in his way, that is also something to be admired, because he has a HUGE effect on the town in a relatively short time?
As for Bush wanting to move the US to a hydrogen economy, that’s laughable. He is making big statements about facts that came into being totally without his involvement. If you want to see a nation move towards a hydrogen economy, look at Iceland.
Sorry, but these approval ratings are meaningless. They are keyed to the US attitude to support the president, no matter how much crap he dishes out, in times of crisis.
Doesnt make a lick of difference if the President is mishandling the crisis. Vietnam didn’t keep anyone’s approval ratings high.
Bush is doing new things that other Presidents haven’t tried before. In terms of number of attacks, he has succeeded, or someone has, becuase terrorism has dropped sharply from last year.
Um, no. Terrorism has been on the decline for far longer than Bush is in office.
Then in that case, we have nothing to worry about.
And this could be bad news for the Bush 2004 election campaign, which desperately wants to use the September 11 attacks and the imminent threat of terrorism in its strategy. What’s tragic is that this could work. Sure, it’s crystal clear to many people that Bush didn’t have much interest in terrorism before September 11, 2001, but it’s not crystal clear to enough people. Since the February 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, the Clinton administration has been after terrorists. Clinton even ordered a missile attack on Afghanistan in 1998 with the intent of taking out Osama bin Laden himself—a move that was derided by Republicans as a mere distraction from the investigations of the Starr Chamber.
After Bush took office in 2001, the emphasis was moved away from terrorism and toward missile defense. All that changed on September 11, when the Bush administration could no longer ignore the terrorist threat.