I really would like to understand this, so will some of you pro-Bush folks try to explain it to me? What is it that Bush did or has done with respect to 9/11 that make you thank heavens he was in office rather than Gore? I’m dead serious here; I’ve never understood it. He came and stood around looking sad and solemn, which any president would have done. He built something of a coalition to go into Afghanistan to get ObL, which again, pretty much any president would have done. Then, instead of finishing the job and getting Afghanistan straightened out so that no new war lord or Taliban rule would come about again, he goes haring into Iraq which has no connection to any known terrorist act against America, on the grounds that it was a grave and imminent threat and strongly implying that Hussein was connected to 9/11, which was well-known to have been false. Three years later, ObL is still at liberty and we are more hated and more at risk of suicide attacks than ever (having really pissed off a huge number of Islamic fundamentalists).
Please, I’m not trying to slam anyone here. I’m honestly trying to understand why people feel he did a good job handling 9/11 and that they are relieved it was him rather than Gore or Kerry at that time. I can’t promise I’ll agree with what you say - in fact, there’s a good chance I won’t. But I’d at least like to know what the thinking is.
I’ve asked the same question as AvhHines of many Bush supporters. All I’ve been able to learn is that he rode in an airplane that landed on an aircraft carrier.
All the other stuff is just what any president would have had to do as part of his position. Many politicians did it all anyway.
So it’s hard to say why.
AvhHines, here’s a link to a political cartoon that kind of expresses what I feel. http://cagle.slate.msn.com/politicalcartoons/PCcartoons/PCbest7.asp
It’s the fourth one down the page, by Scott Stantis, Alabama, The Birmingham News. (I tried to copy a link to the exact one, but it keeps giving me the mailto page.)
Just in case the link goes stale, it shows Paul Revere riding away yelling, “The British are coming but don’t do anything! The British are coming, but don’t upset the U.N.! The British are coming but don’t fight until the French approve!” Caption: “If the Democrats were in Boston back then…”
After 9/11 I wished we had a pre-Alzheimer’s Ronald Reagan in the White House. Or a reborn Winston Churchill. GWB is a whole lot closer to either of those than Clinton, Gore, Kerry or Edwards. Is he everything I’d like him to be? No. But he’s closer to it than the current Democrat Party candidate.
Again, I ask you why you think Bush is closer to this ideal (or for that matter, why Reagan was)? Do you think that we were threatened by Iraq? Threatened so urgently that a few more months of weapons inspections or building up other, more reliable evidence of the threat would have endangered us as a nation? We had no problem in building a coalition to go into Afghanistan, and I think Clinton, Gore or Kerry would have done so.
What threat do you think that Clinton, Gore or Kerry would have refused to meet, but that Bush has? Were we in danger of being invaded and I missed it? Other than 9/11, that is.
Do you really believe they (the revolutionaries) would have attacked, say, Russia because the British were coming? I dunno, thatt might have scared the British.
Peace,
mangeorge
mangeorge, it’s an analogy, not an exact correspondence. Exaggerated to make a point. I’m sure you really do understand.
AvhHines, I do think Iraq was, and could again become, a threat to us. I also think it was and remains important to demonstrate strength to groups who think we are easily scared and will run away as soon as things become difficult.
There is no “other than 9/11.” We were attacked. We were at war from that moment onward. Period. I think Clinton et. al. would have taken the same tactic that was taken after the first WTC bombing.
I don’t know if you remember the Iranian hostage situation during Carter’s administration. The US was pretty much impotent. It was IMHO a factor in Reagan’s election. The running line was “What’s flat and glowing? Tehran the day after Reagan’s sworn in.” The hostage-takers knew that Reagan might not be nice and warm and moral and whatnot, like Carter. He might just be a flaming nutcase. Better let them go, just in case.
To put it another way, what does it take before you fight back? A smoking crater in Manhattan? Oh, wait…
I don’t expect that you will be convinced by any of this, BTW, and will probably not respond further. I really don’t like arguing, and am basically a peaceful person, believe it or not. I just am old enough to know about Neville Chamberlain.
A poor analogy. But then there aren’t any others out there, are there?
I really don’t know anybody who’s said they’ll vote for Bush who didn’t vote for him last time. I’ll ask around. This is not exactly Republican territory, though.
I do remember the Iranian hostage situation quite well, and while I was not alive in 1939, the phrase “We will have peace in our time” still sends chills of horror up my spine.
But there are significant differences between WWII and the current situation, and fighting back blindly at an irrelevant target is probably not the best way to avoid having another smoking crater.
And please bear in mind that one of the reasons the hostages were not released until Reagan took office was that Reagan quite cold-bloodedly set it up that way.
I’m just having trouble seeing how any actions we’ve taken (with the possible exception of our initial foray into Afghanistan) in any way actually improved our safety. Possibly satisfied a thirst for revenge, yes. But revenge wasn’t what Churchill was about. And unfortunately, revenge (whether justified or not is immaterial at this point) is precisely what the people we view as the enemy are about. We haven’t eliminated the people who want to kill us - we’ve vastly increased their numbers.
If we forget about being “moral and whatnot,” what differentiates us from the enemy we fight? Just that fact that they are they and we are we? I’ll grant you that in some situations, it’s a choice - kill or be killed, and I’ll freely admit that in that situation, I choose me. But that’s not what we’ve done here, and I really have trouble seeing how you think it is. We aren’t a small country attacked by a large war machine (cf. Britain in WWII). We are a huge and incredibly powerful country attacked by criminals - not governments, criminals. Sure, we could stop it. We could say that for every single American that dies, we will nuke a city in Saudi Arabia or Iran or Libya, and then we could do it. After two or three demonstrations, I think we would be out of any danger of terrorist attacks. I’m sure there are people who think that would be a terrific idea. You may be one of them, for all I know.
If I understand you correctly, RLS, you feel safer having someone who is viewed as certifiable in the White House. But look at what we here in the US have done out of the fear generated by 9/11. Do you honestly think that generating fear is the best means to protect us?
I have to admit, Bush and his team have done a marvelous job making people THINK he’s doing a great job.
If your standard for skill as a President is in fighting the war on terror, then any logical analysis of what’s happened since 9/11 would suggest that George Bush is the WORST possible man for the job. It’s been almost three years. He has not caught or killed Osama bin Laden, and it’s public knowledge that he screwed up the chance. The war in Afghanistan is being lost. Bush has completely, utterly failed in the war against terror, by any rational analysis - and not because the U.S. military was beaten, but because his administration didn’t bother to fight it very hard. Bush refused to commit to the war on terror. He is failing.
The comparison to Neville Chamberlain would be if Chamberlain SAID he was going to fight Hitler, but committed few troops to the job and then sent most of the British military to invade and conquer Argentina, all while the war against Germany goes sour.
But he’s snowed much of the electorate with a magnificent, magnificent PR job.
I don’t know if you remember the Iranian hostage situation during Carter’s administration. The US was pretty much impotent. It was IMHO a factor in Reagan’s election. The running line was “What’s flat and glowing? Tehran the day after Reagan’s sworn in.” The hostage-takers knew that Reagan might not be nice and warm and moral and whatnot, like Carter. He might just be a flaming nutcase. Better let them go, just in case.
To put it another way, what does it take before you fight back? A smoking crater in Manhattan? Oh, wait…
I don’t expect that you will be convinced by any of this, BTW, and will probably not respond further. I really don’t like arguing, and am basically a peaceful person, believe it or not. I just am old enough to know about Neville Chamberlain.
[/QUOTE]
Judging solely by your posts – the onlly evidence available – you’re certainly not a “peaceful guy.” For I couldn’t possibly imagine a peaceful person wanting to lash out at country that had nothing to do with the event that precipitated your reaction.
I just don’t get it, and quite frankly, find it very sad that someone could feel that way.
In fact, I’m not even a guy. Both I and my daughters were surprised at how violently we felt after 9/11 that the people who did that, as well as the countries in which they were tolerated, could be wiped off the face of the earth as far as we cared. I’ve actually moderated since then. I am glad that Saddam is captured. I’m glad that his evil sons are dead. I hope the representatives of the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs and others wreak a terrible punishment upon him for his crimes.
Some day OBL will be killed or captured. It will take time, but it will happen. One by one his henchmen and cohorts are killed or captured. His time will come. I can wait.
I love the song “Angry American,” that’s how angry I am.
One can wish and hope and work for peaceful solutions. In my personal life I am non-confrontational to a fault; I look for compromise and accomodation in every conflict, sometimes to my own disadvantage. Comes a time, however, that you have to hit back.
For example, I think guns should be registered and licensed. However, if I had one, and was able to use it, I would without an iota of regret blow off the head of any person who tried to harm my children. So there you are.
Ok, you tell me Mr Smartypants. What exactly was it that Bush did that the others mentioned wouldn’t have done, and that makes ardent Bush supporters glad that those weren’t in office? Why?
Please, I’ve already heard about him riding in that plane that landed on an aircraft carrier.
Give me some credit for not bringing up the “Mission Accomplished” thing.
OBL and his henchmen (and women) are the only ones in your post who are connected with 9/11. Our “hitting back” hasn’t been very successful or effective. That, my peaceful friend, is the problem.
Peace,
mangeorge
I’m talking about middle-America folks . . . working class people, “salt-of-the-earth” type people, the two-point-three kids people who live in the suburbs, who go to church, shop at WalMart and might enjoy country music.
I did not mean it in any derogatory sense at all, unless you count the dismissive contempt that some people have for simple, working class folk. If I conjured a negative image through my choice of wording, I apologize. It was not intentional.
Which will do very little to eliminate the terrorist threat. I haven’t read Richard Clarke’s book, but I did hear him give a talk about it at the American Library Association’s national conference in Orlando last month. He pointed out that although we have already captured a lot of al-Qaeda leaders, the organization is as strong as ever; it’s simply been transformed into a more decentralized organization of cells in different countries acting independently.
Clarke compared our situation to that of the French in a film (I forget the title) about the French in the 1950s trying to wipe out the secessionist insurgency in Algeria. They interrogated suspects, put together an organizational chart of the rebellion, and by the end of the film had completely wiped out the organization. Then, just before the credits, a message flashed on the screen informing the audience that, two years later, the French were kicked out of Algeria. Why? Because while they were busy wiping out the first rebel organization, a new set of rebels they didn’t even know about grew up under their noses.
He also spoke of a young man he met after a college lecture, a Bangladeshi who lived through that countries war of secession from Pakistan, and who saw Pakistani troops enter his house and beat up his family. And he said if he met a Pakistani soldier today, he would kill him. And every Arab boy who is watching the Al Jazeera broadcasts of Americans abusing Iraqis is going to grow up hating Americans. We’ll be dealing with that for decades to come.
The Bush Admin is going about this the wrong way. What we need to do is stop throwing our weight around like we’re the New Empire, and start mending some fences, insofar as we can, with the Islamic world. Give them less reason to hate us. Kerry has a better shot at that, if only because he’ll represent a fresh start and will be in a position to dissociate himself from the previous administration’s policies.
See how Red Fury wrote “nothing to do with it”? Well, that includes “countries in which they were tolerated.” Yep that’s right. Al-Q was not tolerated, trained or resident in Iraq. It had “nothing to do with it.”
Iraq & Saddam Hussein: September 11. Completely unconnected.
Or in brief
No. That’s how easily you are manipulated by cynical politicians.
That’s cool with me, kiddo. I have yet to go to a NASCAR race, but I am included in the class. "cept the country music part.
Some, on these boards yet, have used that term in conjunction with “slack jawed” and “double wide”, etc, in a definitely derogatory sense.
Aside from those who just became old enough to vote or new citizens. I can’t think of too many.
One target demographic for Karl Rove’s strategy has been Hispanics. However, I don’t think that is panning out. Setting aside the fact that “Hispanic” includes many different sub-groups that vote quite differently, Bush’s major immigration proposal (which is hardly mentioned any more) backfired. Tell a third generation Hispanic blue collar worker that you want to regularize thousands of new immigrants, and you won’t exactly see a thrilled expression.
One other possibility is the Jewish vote, it may be less Democrat than in the past.
with me, kiddo. I have yet to go to a NASCAR race, but I am included in the class. "cept the country music part.