At What Point Did You Realize Bush Was a Disaster?

[Texas]

Um no.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7/7

Not to put too fine a point on it but how can Bush be blamed for that? The London attacks were home grown and even now you have 4 terror suspects that have jumped bail and on the loose.

 

[geni]

Not to put too fine a point on it but how can Bush be blamed for that?

In a word Iraq. Prior to that the more violent groups didn't have much of a popular rallying cry. Sure there was palistine but that was old but Iraq was new and could trivialy be played as a war on islam/western imperialism.

 

[Texas]

In a word Iraq. Prior to that the more violent groups didn't have much of a popular rallying cry. Sure there was palistine but that was old but Iraq was new and could trivialy be played as a war on islam/western imperialism.

Tell me then why the US Muslim population, much larger that the UK, is NOT blowing up trains because of Iraq?

 

[Policenaut]

Might have something to do with the radical preachers they allow into the country.

 

[Damien Evans]

Also... if someone had come in here on 9/12/01 and said that seven more years would pass without any additional terror attacks, I think every one of us would be ready to lift Bush on our shoulders and sing songs in his praise.

Whatever you can say about his policies, they have prevented another attack. To say that terrorists simply haven't chosen to attack us would be absolutely ludicrous and indefensible. On 9/12/01 he was given that mandate first and foremost, and he carried it through.

Katrina was a mess, he's cringe-worthy in public, all these things are true. But give credit where it's due.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Bali_bombings

 

[Texas]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Bali_bombings

Why do you insist on trying to say something the poster did not say. His entire point was no attack on US soil. Talk to the government of Indonesia about that atack.

 

[Texas]

Might have something to do with the radical preachers they allow into the country.

That and allowing them out on bail when they are arrested and then they just disappear

 

[BeAChooser]

In a word Iraq. Prior to that the more violent groups didn't have much of a popular rallying cry.

Where do you get such nonsense? We were attacked repeatedly in the decade prior to Iraq. Al-Qaeda had camps in Afghanistan that trained tens of thousands of fanatics. They had no trouble "rallying" people who didn't like us and wished us harm. And al-Qaeda was active in Iraq prior to our invasion, plotting several significant terrorist attacks from there. One was a plot that had it been successful would have killed tens of thousand of Jordanians and everyone in the US embassy in Amman. al-Zarqawi met with the terrorists in Baghdad before the invasion.

 

[Damien Evans]

Why do you insist on trying to say something the poster did not say. His entire point was no attack on US soil. Talk to the government of Indonesia about that atack.

So you're a mind reader then. Good to know.

When will you be applying for the million?

 

[Cain]

I'm not sure how to answer the question in the original post. The things that stick out in my mind back in 2000 and before is that Bush was anointed; the GOP nomination was inherited rather than earned. Back in that campaign he cited Jesus as his favorite "philosopher" and did some nasty things to John McCain. In the general he could not name leaders of foreign countries; I thought his "we're-not-going-to-engage-in-nation-building" was a strong point against Gore, but after 9/11 all bets were off. You also had the stolen election, and the rampant dishonesty on tax cuts before and after (I used to consistently read Krugman back then).

 

[Undesired Walrus]

h

Also... if someone had come in here on 9/12/01 and said that seven more years would pass without any additional terror attacks, I think every one of us would be ready to lift Bush on our shoulders and sing songs in his praise.

Whatever you can say about his policies, they have prevented another attack. To say that terrorists simply haven't chosen to attack us would be absolutely ludicrous and indefensible. On 9/12/01 he was given that mandate first and foremost, and he carried it through.

Katrina was a mess, he's cringe-worthy in public, all these things are true. But give credit where it's due.

He certainly hasn't decreased those willing to carry out attacks, not by one iota. If anything those wishing to cause America harm have grown in size.

I have failed to come across any evidence that shows that the wars he has waged have prevented further attacks on US soil, other than law agencies doing the work for him.

The USA was saved from a terrorist attack far larger than 9/11 in 2006 when the British police foiled the attempts of eight British Muslims from allegedly detonating liquid explosives on eight American airplanes, causing the deaths of thousands of lives in the sky and on the ground. They were caught, charged, and are now on trial. How did Bush and his wars possibly prevent that one?

Clinton -too- 'prevented' attacks on US soil throughout his Presidency since the first WTC bombing.

 

[Texas]

h

He certainly hasn't decreased those willing to carry out attacks, not by one iota. If anything those wishing to cause America harm have grown in size.


.

Evidence?

 

[Allen773]

Evidence?

A good clue would be comparing the number of terrorist attacks before 9/11 and Iraq to the number afterwords.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

An example I gave in the last post was of a terrorist attack that would have caused more death and destruction than 9/11 and July 7th combined. That's an increase.

As-Sahab has not stopped it's development of propoganda, instead it has increased.

Attacks against US troops, bases and democratic institutions around the world have increased.

Iran is now in the process of developing a nuclear bomb.

I'm not willing to say he is to blame for the numbers, what I'm saying is that he has not decreased those willing to carry them out, those who are determined to carry them out. Thus the credit here goes to America's law and order department.

 

[Texas]

An example I gave in the last post was of a terrorist attack that would have caused more death and destruction than 9/11 and July 7th combined. That's an increase.

As-Sahab has not stopped it's development of propoganda, instead it has increased.

Attacks against US troops, bases and democratic institutions around the world have increased.

Iran is now in the process of developing a nuclear bomb.

I'm not willing to say he is to blame for the numbers, what I'm saying is that he has not decreased those willing to carry them out, those who are determined to carry them out. Thus the credit here goes to America's law and order department.

I seem to remember seeing on this very site the opinion that that particular plot was an over reaction. As to the law and order department one of the main differences between the US and the UK is that we don't offer bail to terrorist suspects while the UK provides bail and then they just disappear. The other difference is that while we have a far larger Muslim population than the UK our population has not been radicalized to the extent of the UK's. I sympathise with the UK problem but when it comes to post 911 attacks the United States has been more effective in preventing further attacks. It could be just dumb luck or it could be that our reaction to 911 has made attacking the US a poor risk/award proposition.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

I seem to remember seeing on this very site the opinion that that particular plot was an over reaction.

Well, this website is not (Always!) right about everything. Take a look at the current trail and you will see that they were very commited, highly motivated but also monitored by the Met police. They were allegedly days away from their execution. The Liquid explosives were tested (You can watch the video on the BBC site) and exploded, shattering the glass that was modelled on the window of a passenger plane.

If it hadn't have been for the British police, the United States would have had a far more devestating terrorist attack than 9/11, and we would not be having this conversation about Bush 'protecting' the US, as we could have simply pointed to the Liquid explosives attack of 2006.

But even if none of the explosives would have gone off, would you have counted that as a terrorist attack, or only if they had gone off? If you decide that it would have been a terrorist attack, you have to question at what stage you begin to deem these plots as terrorism directed at the US.

Whenever the British terrorists have gone for training, where do they go? It has not been Iraq or Afghanistan, it has always been Pakistan. A safe-haven in the war on terror.

The other difference is that while we have a far larger Muslim population than the UK our population has not been radicalized to the extent of the UK's.

Whilst you are a larger country, this is not an entirely valid comparison. American Muslims make up only 0.6% of the US population, whilst British Muslims make up 2.7% of the population in a far smaller country.

Regardless, we were not talking about home-grown terrorism (Although you recently had a plot at JFK airport) this was about people who wish to do the US harm, regardless of where they come from.

As to the law and order department one of the main differences between the US and the UK is that we don't offer bail to terrorist suspects while the UK provides bail and then they just disappear.

Who are you thinking of? Some of the most vile Islamists have been locked up, including Abu Hamza and Abu Izzadeen, whilst Omar Bakri has been expelled from British soil.

I sympathise with the UK problem but when it comes to post 911 attacks the United States has been more effective in preventing further attacks.

I didn't say the US security service has not been effective in preventing attacks. My point was that Islamists -people who do not fear death ('Think not of those who have died as dead' etc)- have not decreased in size, and the call for a world governed by God-made laws rather than Man-Made laws has not decreased.

As I pointed out, Iran -a country bordering a land occupied by US forces- is in the process of developing a nuclear bomb. This is a country that is -since 2002- been deemed the largest state-sponser of terror in the world, and it is developing a nuclear bomb. That is not a victory for Bush.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I voted for Bush Jr. in 2000, and again in 2004, and if he were able to run again, I'd vote for him again now in 2008. I would prefer him over McCain, and I certainly would prefer him over Obama.

I think I can understand someone feeling as you do if they believed terrorism was not only the number one priority facing the U.S., but far outstripped all other priorities. Does that characterize your position? Do you think Bush has been a good president on the economy, social issues, international relations beyond the wars, use of the “bully pulpit,” and other matters outside terrorism?

I guess I’m wondering if people who voted for him twice and don't regret it are proud of him as president in general terms, or is it just a lesser-of-two-evils situation. If you feel like answering.

It seems to me that truly great Presidents are fairly rare. Certainly, neither of the Bushes were in the same league as Ronald Reagan. But Bush Jr., especially, has been put into a very difficult position, and I have a very difficult time imagining how anyone could have handled it very much better than he has. Certainly Clinton (both of them), Kerry, Gore, and Obama would have done much, much, much worse. In fact, Bill Clinton was in a similar (albeit less severe) position when the World Trade Center was attacked in 1993; and he did nothing. Clinton's cowardly malfeasance in this instance is largely responsible for allowing the 9/11 attacks to occur. Had Clinton taken proper action in 1993, as Bush did in 2001, then the 9/11 attacks would almost certainly not have happened.

On other issues, I have generally been satisfied with how Bush has handled them.

Instead, we've got Bush Jr. who has taken us into the war that was needed to prevent further such attacks, but that war is becoming unpopular, and he is being blamed for it.

For many of us, the war in Iraq isn’t “becoming unpopular.” It was seen as a tragically bad idea before it even started. In which case, I hope you can understand why we feel Bush is exactly to blame.

The alternative was to allow attacks against us, on our own soil — such as took place on 9/11 — to become common. That's almost certainly what would have happened under Gore. That is almost certainly what would have happened had we not gone to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. And a President who allowed this to happen would surely become far less popular than Bush Jr. has become.

 

[SezMe]

Evidence?

U.S. Figures Show Sharp Global Rise In Terrorism

A couple of snippets from the above:

The number of serious international terrorist incidents more than tripled last year, according to U.S. government figures, a sharp upswing in deadly attacks that the State Department has decided not to make public in its annual report on terrorism due to Congress this week.

The State Department announced last week that it was breaking with tradition in withholding the statistics on terrorist attacks from its congressionally mandated annual report. Critics said the move was designed to shield the government from questions about the success of its effort to combat terrorism by eliminating what amounted to the only year-to-year benchmark of progress.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The clinton administration were prepared to use a fair bit of force when they felt it necessary…

…to distract the American public from Clinton's own scandals.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Homeland Security (couldn't they have come up with a better name? Sounds too Nazi-esque) has been instrumental in deterring terrorist attacks.

The FBI and CIA have been instrumental in deterring terrorist attacks.

As much as I dislike it, I have to admit that the Patriot Act has probably been instrumental in deterring terrorist attacks.

However, the war in Iraq has done nothing to deter terrorist attacks. In fact, it is counterproductive, giving the terrorists even more reason to try.