Oh, I agree there’s no way I can prove that Bush is responsible for our improved safety. Equally, there is no way you can ‘prove’ he isn’t. And in fact, as with Bubba and the techno-bubble economy, Bush gets credit – it happened on his watch and he’s the guy in charge.

“Safer” is a comparative and compares the post 9-11 period to the time before that. Terrorists killed about 2,800 innocent Americans on American soil. After that, zilch. I’d say thats demonstrable. Part of the problem here is (for you) OWs faulty premise.

Dugger

There were no Islamic terrorist attacks on American soil for eight years between the first Trade Center attack and the second. Up to Sept. 10 2001 would you have argued that we were demonstrably safer based solely on that information? The fact that there have been no attacks on American soil since 9-11 in no way demonstrates that we are safer. There’s just you saying its true and then pointing a bunch of new programs and the Iraq war. But there’s no way you can actually demonstrate that anything Bush has done including the Iraq war has made us safer. See Johnny Ps Simpsons reference above. In this instance I’m not arguing that we are safer or that we aren’t safer. For all we know the Iraq war has had no effect on our safety one way or the other. My only point is that you said we were “demonstrably safer” and yet you cannot demonstrate that we are. All you’ve got is your feeling that we must be safer. You sound positively liberal trusting your feelings like that.

I’m not sure if you’re lumping schools and hospitals with daily suicide bombings, but the fact of the matter is as clear as a bell – before the beginning of sanctions in 1991, and compounded of course by the invasion in 2003, Iraq had one of the best, if not the best, systems of schools and health care in the Middle East. Like oil production and water, they may have improved slightly since the end of shock and awe, but they still aren’t anywhere near what they were before the Americans and British decided to “help”.

OK by me.

Only I would quibble that there ARE decent people on both sides (maybe you meant that).

“I do think there are people who perceive themselves as  decent on both sides of the aisle ”

Dugger

I don’t want to split hairs over what ‘most’ means and my statement did not exclude people of both persuasions from the ‘decent’ appellation.

I do think there are people who perceive themselves as ‘decent’ on both sides of the aisle on this issue who are less than decent, but they are a minority.
IMO

” it take guts to admit one is conflicted”. Not really.

frank,

I voted R and will vote R again. I hope I’m wrong on Iraq. Hope it (what we’re doing there) turns out to be some kind of modified, less costly mideast Marshall plan and we produce a shiny, modernized democratic state – a state that will stand in stark contrast to the primitive backward Syrias and Irans of the region. And I hope we have sent a message to the terrorists’ ‘cave’ boardrooms that the US will fight back and fight back hard, and that we will strike at your supportive infrastructure and your enablers, no matter how big and powerful they are. Theres just that doubt that we won’t really change a thing about the essential nature of Iraq’s life and culture, and after we leave, like Shahist Iran, they will revert to a 16th century theocracy or an authoritarian dictatorship.

Semant, You said most decent people are conflicted about this war. I think thats (‘most’) presumptious. There are plenty of decent people firmly convinced its the right thing to do and plenty (decent) convinced its the wrong thing. Decency has little to do with it. And while I have doubts about our being there, we are there and must now stay the course and not cut and run – which is what a timetable would amount to, IMO.

Elrod (and frame),

My perspective in intra-US. I’m only arguing that there have been no fatal attacks on American soil by Islamic terrorists since 9-11. 9-11 killed about 2,800 innocent civilian American citizens. How can we (the US, not the world) not be safer? I agree that there can be a sh*tpot of different, subjective reasons for that margin of safety (and many may have nothing to do with the President) , but also there is no way you can just arbitrarily discount measures taken by the Bush Admin, including the Iraq war.
All in all, I realize he’s just engaging in partisan bluster, but I strongly disagree with OWs assertion that we are not safer. he’s a strong partisana nd toa dmit the reality, that, for whatever reason, we are safer, hurts the Democratic Party – whom many view as weak on the WOT.

Dugger
Dugger

Most decent people are coflicted about this war. Personally, I think a timetable is important because it is human nature to take longer to get a job done when you are given no time limit. Deadlines work. If you tell the Iraqis; You have until June of 2006 to get your act together, they will get it done. If you give them to December of 2006, they will take the extra six months to do the same work.

Don’t you understand that it’s either; get out NOW, or stay uyntil the last man is standing? There is no interim position. That’s what they tell me, anyway.

Perhaps uf you people could shut off the the reflex arc that goes “Frank_D comment = something stupid = prepare left wing rebuttal” before you read my comments, you might actually engage in a debate.

And, to all the rest of you, I am measuring progress in Iraq, not by painted schoolhouses — not exactly a bad thing — but by the number of trained and ready Iraqi security and police forces.

See
here

and

here

What successes of the Iraq War? The schools, the hospitals, the daily suicide bombings?

I was in favor of it; I think it was the right thing to do. I don’t see any reason to change my mind — certainly not because others have changed theirs.

I’ve stated my reasons for supporting the war (no, not because of WMD’s, no, not because Hussein was implicated in 9/11) more than once; and I don’t feel like explaining myself again right now.

Yes, a lot of Americans have died and been wounded; so have a lot of of Afghans and Iraqis. I believe that the probability of a civil war is less than 50 / 50 — more like 20 / 80. which not coincidentally represents the percentage of Sunnis in Iraq.

I don’t listen to Hannity or Limbaugh or Dobson or O’Reilly, so don’t even go there. There is a ton of commentary and good reporting in the OnLine MSM, journals, and the blogs all saying the same thing: the successes of the Iraq war are being largely downplayed or ignored by the NYT – WaPo – LAT axis; ABCCBSNBC, CNBCCNNMSNBC, PBSNPR, and TimeNewsweek.

But the facts can be found. And, if, “the lack of attacks in America post-9/11 is a premature, if not outright flawed metric for determining whether or not we are safer since Iraq”, then so is the mention of every single attack that takes place every day, a poor and unfair way to describe lack of progress in the Global War on Terror.

So, I’m not conflicted, and I’m not backing down. I don’t care if terrorists are booking group rates to Baghdad; killing them wholesale is better than killing them retail.

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a
charm.
Lisa: That’s spacious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn’t work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It’s just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don’t see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.

You presume wrongly that I support (or don’t support the war). I’m conflicted. In my heart I believe we won’t change a thing in Iraq and have used 2,000 lives and a lot of worker’s money for an unwinnable effort. I just don’t buy into the leftist conspiracy theories. The neocons are patriotically motivated and smart, Iraq, despite my pessimism, may turn out to be a success (but I doubt it).
And I served 27 years in the USAF (I’m starting to sound like Dobie Gillis’ dad). Which makes me no more qualified to analyze this war, despite the idiot chickenhawk proponents on the left, than the pizza delivery guy.

Dugger

Okay Dugger. Demonstrate.

I disagree with you on the patriotism (and intelligence) of the neocons but we can leave that for another day.