The conservative push to re-cast the common sense plan to leave Iraq as a liberal stab in the back continues with Hugh Hewitt given an assist by NY Times correspondent John Burns. Burns pulls the figure of 1 million Iraqis 
dying in a civil war simply out of his rear, and Hewitt is glad to trumpet that figure because it serves his cause. The very real and very concrete number of 3,652 dead Americans in Iraq isn’t much of a concern to Hewitt and the right in this case, however, not to mention the 3,000 killed on 9/11 still unavenged thanks to the Republican inability to fight terrorism (Oh God, we can’t cross Pakistan’s border – we promised with a pinky swear and everything!).
Before the 2004 election the overwhelming message from the right was "We’re winning, the Iraqis are standing up and we’ll be out soon you liberal whiners", now it has modified and transformed into "Well, we totally screwed up the invasion and occupation of Iraq and were totally wrong on everything, but we need to stay in Iraq and have soldiers die and allow terrorists to run free because we don’t want to admit we were wrong and if we leave something may or may not happen and if it’s bad it’s all the liberal’s fault!!!".
The fundamental difference here is that the impetus behind liberal thinking on this issue has consistently been the protection of American citizens and the security of the world, while for conservatives it has been mission one to carry water for George W. Bush and cover his and Dick Cheney’s posteriors. One of those two mindsets makes rational sense, the other one is deep inside with George W. Bush’s benign polyps.
If these people had been in charge back in the ’60s and ’70s we’d still be "on the verge of victory" in Vietnam right now ("We’ve got the Vietcong on the run. Just yesterday we killed the 4,343rd ‘#2′ in Vietcong’s leadership structure.").
This war was a bad idea, horrendously executed by George W. Bush, the Republican party and the conservative movement with able assistance by a blind and dumb Democratic party. The response to this is not to keep it going in fear of something bad happening (News Flash: It’s Too Late For That), but to end it. Thanks to the mistakes made by our leaders, there’s no clean way to end it. People are going to die, but the point here is to not have those people die be Americans – either military people or civilians like you and me who are not being protected against terrorism.
I do admit the “if we pull out it will be catastrophic” meme is compelling, until I remember that the people pushing that meme have been wrong about everything concerning Iraq.
“Republican inability to fight terrorism (Oh God, we can’t cross Pakistan’s border – we promised with a pinky swear and everything!).”
Actually, the Republicans have done a rather good job on terrorism – no signifcant attacks on US soil since 9/11.
And you still are advocating invasion of Pakistan. Wow. Do you realize how stupid that is. Do you know how big the tribal areas are? How can you seriously criticize casualties in Iraq when Pakistan arguably would be 10 times worse. Will the soldiers and civilians that die in the progressive Pakistan adventure be worth less than those you harp on in Iraq. OK they die there but not Iraq?
BTW, where is OBL exactly? Surely you are not advocating invasion without knowing exactly. BTW, ‘Asia” doesn’t count.
Actually, the Republicans have done a rather good job on terrorism – no signifcant attacks on US soil since 9/11.
Jesus.
“Actually, the Republicans have done a rather good job on terrorism – no signifcant attacks on US soil since 9/11″
If by “significant” you mean NO ONE DIED VIA AN ANTHRAX ATTACK IN THE UNITED STATES, then yes, you are correct.
That also makes two perpetrators of terrorism who still remain free.
-Just a small detail.
Did you address me, August?
No matter what we do or do not, there will be a costly civil war in Iraq. Bush’s failure to prepare for a post invasion civil order has insured that much.
//Dugger: Do you know how big the tribal areas are//
.
Smaller than Iraq. And since when is a pro-war Neo-Con jock sniffer like you concerned with casualties?
Too bad Bush has misspent our military assets… The real criminals are getting away.
Did you address me, August?
Wow.
Why would Al Qaeda attack us here in the US? George Bush is doing what bin Laden wants him to do!
And he’s still running free, while his organization is bigger and stronger than ever. Good job, George.
Meanwhile:
Over 600,000 dead Iraqis. 4 million more displaced as refugees. Little electricity, orphans all over the place, rampant corruption in the government, Al Qaeda growing in strength and popularity, crime rampant, cultural heritage decimated, that on Iraq’s side.
On the US side, 4,500+ dead, tens of thousands wounded or maimed, tens of billions lost and/or stolen, army stretched by extended deployments, lost and damaged equipment, lowered recruitment standards, Reputation dragged through the mud, Abu GHraib, Torture, loss of international cooperaton in the fight against terrorism, etc…
Did you know nearly all the money the US has spent on Iraq reconstruction has been completely wasted? Out of the 2300+ completed US projects in the last year, the Iraqi government has accepted responsibility for none of them. Meaning the rest are still in US hands draining our monetary resources or have been abandoned. Good Job!
It’s really hard to take the humanitarian concerns of the right towards Iraqis seriously because 1) as Enlightened Liberal pointed out, the Cons have been wrong at every point so far, and 2) the Cons’ dirty little war has cost the lives of nearly a million Iraqis thus far. So why should anyone listen to the Duggers or Malkins? We don’t listen to the views of the American Nazi Party or Lyndon LaRouche — what makes Dugger think he’s any more relevant?
It’s as if he really doesn’t know who was president on 9/11.
By the way, really excellent post, Oliver.
What the Repubs are doing is “gumming it to death” (see Tim Griffin) so as to dump Bush’s mess onto the next President. They know that no matter when we pull out of Iraq, the Iraqis and even the entire middle east is going to explode in celebration, burning American flags and the usual anti-American behavior. Bush can’t have this happen under his watch. The Repubs want it to happen under a Democrat so they can paint the Democrats with their usual childish slander (see Black Hawk Down).
The fact that there have been no attacks since 9/11 is certainly not something the Republicans should take credit for. It was their obstructionism that has prevented our ports, nuclear facilities, and chemical plants to be protected in the ways recommended by the 9/11 Commission. The world is safer and better off with them removed from power.
Sorry, Bush does get credit for no successful T attack in the US since 9/11s. he was CinC. An honest progressive would acknowledge that point.
Dugger, just so we have the facts straight. There have been scarce few terrorist attacks in the U.S. ever. 9/11 is of course on Bush’s watch. The first WTC attack and Oklahoma City on Clinton’s. Before that, you have to go back to 1975 to even find an attack of any historical note, and that was perpetrated by Puerto Rican extremists. It is an extremely rare event.
What is not nearly as rare, at least since the 1980s, is Islamic extremists attacking U.S. interests abroad. The rate of such attacks has been strongest over the last 6 years. In fact, if you consider insurgent attacks on U.S. soldiers to be terrorist activities, we have seen an increase of about 1000X in U.S. fatalities under Bush.
None of this, oh honest one, gets at the fact that the Republicans, your party of choice, failed to implement the recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission. If there is an attack on a U.S. port, chemical or nuclear facility, I will expect you to take fully responsibility.
An honest conservative would acknowledge the anthrax attacks.
Bush does get credit for no successful T attack in the US since 9/11s
As long as he takes the blame for that one by ignoring plenty of warnings, no problem.
Wait. He/you blamed Clinton, who warned him that OBL should be the highest priority of the incoming administration.
Nope, can’t give him credit for anything good if he won’t accept blame for the bad stuff that he allowed to happen.
Great moments in presidential leadership: Bush responds to an attack on America by reading about a pet goat, when he wasn’t staring blankly at the walls.
Since this post has been hijacked into a “terrorist attack against America” post, here’s a few facts to ponder if you want to see how succesful Bush has been:
Terrorist Attacks
(within the United States or against Americans abroad)
1920
Sept. 16, New York City: TNT bomb planted in unattended horse-drawn wagon exploded on Wall Street opposite House of Morgan, killing 35 people and injuring hundreds more. Bolshevist or anarchist terrorists believed responsible, but crime never solved.
1975
Jan. 24, New York City: bomb set off in historic Fraunces Tavern killed 4 and injured more than 50 people. Puerto Rican nationalist group (FALN) claimed responsibility, and police tied 13 other bombings to the group.
1979
Nov. 4, Tehran, Iran: Iranian radical students seized the U.S. embassy, taking 66 hostages. 14 were later released. The remaining 52 were freed after 444 days on the day of President Reagan’s inauguration.
1982–1991
Lebanon: Thirty US and other Western hostages kidnapped in Lebanon by Hezbollah. Some were killed, some died in captivity, and some were eventually released. Terry Anderson was held for 2,454 days.
1983
April 18, Beirut, Lebanon: U.S. embassy destroyed in suicide car-bomb attack; 63 dead, including 17 Americans. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.
Oct. 23, Beirut, Lebanon: Shiite suicide bombers exploded truck near U.S. military barracks at Beirut airport, killing 241 marines. Minutes later a second bomb killed 58 French paratroopers in their barracks in West Beirut.
Dec. 12, Kuwait City, Kuwait: Shiite truck bombers attacked the U.S. embassy and other targets, killing 5 and injuring 80.
1984
Sept. 20, east Beirut, Lebanon: truck bomb exploded outside the U.S. embassy annex, killing 24, including 2 U.S. military.
Dec. 3, Beirut, Lebanon: Kuwait Airways Flight 221, from Kuwait to Pakistan, hijacked and diverted to Tehran. 2 Americans killed.
1985
April 12, Madrid, Spain: Bombing at restaurant frequented by U.S. soldiers, killed 18 Spaniards and injured 82.
June 14, Beirut, Lebanon: TWA Flight 847 en route from Athens to Rome hijacked to Beirut by Hezbollah terrorists and held for 17 days. A U.S. Navy diver executed.
Oct. 7, Mediterranean Sea: gunmen attack Italian cruise ship, Achille Lauro. One U.S. tourist killed. Hijacking linked to Libya.
Dec. 18, Rome, Italy, and Vienna, Austria: airports in Rome and Vienna were bombed, killing 20 people, 5 of whom were Americans. Bombing linked to Libya.
1986
April 2, Athens, Greece:A bomb exploded aboard TWA flight 840 en route from Rome to Athens, killing 4 Americans and injuring 9.
April 5, West Berlin, Germany: Libyans bombed a disco frequented by U.S. servicemen, killing 2 and injuring hundreds.
1988
Dec. 21, Lockerbie, Scotland: N.Y.-bound Pan-Am Boeing 747 exploded in flight from a terrorist bomb and crashed into Scottish village, killing all 259 aboard and 11 on the ground. Passengers included 35 Syracuse University students and many U.S. military personnel. Libya formally admitted responsibility 15 years later (Aug. 2003) and offered $2.7 billion compensation to victims’ families.
1993
Feb. 26, New York City: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others. In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 9 others were convicted of conspiracy charges, and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of the bombing. Al-Qaeda involvement is suspected.
1995
April 19, Oklahoma City: car bomb exploded outside federal office building, collapsing wall and floors. 168 people were killed, including 19 children and 1 person who died in rescue effort. Over 220 buildings sustained damage. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols later convicted in the antigovernment plot to avenge the Branch Davidian standoff in Waco, Tex., exactly 2 years earlier. (See Miscellaneous Disasters.)
Nov. 13, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: car bomb exploded at U.S. military headquarters, killing 5 U.S. military servicemen.
1996
June 25, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds of others. 13 Saudis and a Lebanese, all alleged members of Islamic militant group Hezbollah, were indicted on charges relating to the attack in June 2001.
1998
Aug. 7, Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: truck bombs exploded almost simultaneously near 2 U.S. embassies, killing 224 (213 in Kenya and 11 in Tanzania) and injuring about 4,500. 4 men connected with al-Qaeda 2 of whom had received training at al-Qaeda camps inside Afghanistan, were convicted of the killings in May 2001 and later sentenced to life in prison. A federal grand jury had indicted 22 men in connection with the attacks, including Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, who remained at large.
2000
Oct. 12, Aden, Yemen: U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole heavily damaged when a small boat loaded with explosives blew up alongside it. 17 sailors killed. Linked to Osama bin Laden, or members of al-Qaeda terrorist network.
2001
Sept. 11, New York City, Arlington, Va., and Shanksville, Pa.: hijackers crashed 2 commercial jets into twin towers of World Trade Center; 2 more hijacked jets were crashed into the Pentagon and a field in rural Pa. Total dead and missing numbered 2,9921: 2,749 in New York City, 184 at the Pentagon, 40 in Pa., and 19 hijackers. Islamic al-Qaeda terrorist group blamed. (See September 11, 2001: Timeline of Terrorism.)
2002
June 14, Karachi, Pakistan: bomb exploded outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12. Linked to al-Qaeda.
2003
May 12, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: suicide bombers killed 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. Al-Qaeda suspected.
2004
May 29–31, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists attack the offices of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, take foreign oil workers hostage in a nearby residential compound, leaving 22 people dead including one American.
June 11–19, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2 other Americans and BBC cameraman killed by gun attacks.
Dec. 6, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: terrorists storm the U.S. consulate, killing 5 consulate employees. 4 terrorists were killed by Saudi security.
2005
Nov. 9, Amman, Jordan: Suicide bombers hit 3 American hotels, Radisson, Grand Hyatt, and Days Inn, in Amman, Jordan, killing 57. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility.
2006
Sept. 13, Damascus, Syria: an attack by four gunman on the American embassy was foiled.
2007
Jan. 12, Athens, Greece: the U.S. embassy was fired on by an anti-tank missile causing damage but no injuries.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html
As you can plainly see from the comment I just posted, when it comes to combating and thwarting terrorism, Reagan/Bush1/Bush2…NOT SO GOOD!
But who do the stupid Repubs bash?
Clinton and Carter, whose records are stellar in comparison to the Repubs.
“Actually, the Republicans have done a rather good job on terrorism – no signifcant attacks on US soil since 9/11. ”
“Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?”
You really get the D-list trolls on here Oliver.
I love how the million-dead-in-civil-war number just pulled out of the air is very serious and must be believed, while the Lancet 600k dead number computed via observation and statistical analysis is complete bunk.
Thanks for (verbosely) making my point Oxycon. No succesful T attacks on American soil since 9/11. The fact that there were successful attacks overseas, outside Bush’s jurisdiction, only emphasizes his success at home. AN honest progressive would give the president high marks in this area.
rheinhard
C/mon. The Lancet study is piece of politicized crap.
“Much of the math here is mind-numbingly complicated, but Kane’s bottom line is simple: the Lancet authors “cannot reject the null hypothesis that mortality in Iraq is unchanged.” Translation: according to Kane, the confidence interval for the Lancet authors’ main finding is wrong. Had the authors calculated the confidence interval correctly, Kane asserts that they would have failed to identify a statistically significant increase in risk of death in Iraq, let alone the widely-reported 98,000 excess civilian deaths.”
An interesting side note: as Kane observes in his paper, the Lancet authors “refuse to provide anyone with the underlying data (or even a precise description of the actual methodology).” The researchers did release some high-level summary data in highly aggregated form (see here), but they released neither the detailed interviewee-level data nor the programming code that would be necessary to replicate their results.
“No succesful T attacks on American soil since 9/11.”
Except for the anthrax attacks, which you dishonestly ignore.
As for your attacks on the Lancet study, where are you getting the material you’re cutting and pasting from? If I’m going to argue with someone, I’d like to see their full argument instead of your parroting of it.
Is this Kane the villain from Robocop 2, by any chance?
Unluckily for Dugger, the paper he’s quoting from is discussing the 2004 study, not the Oct. 2006 study — the one that found 650 thousand excess Iraqi deaths from March 2003-July 2006, so his cut and paste was a total waste of time. Typically, he didn’t source his claim, so his weaselhood wasn’t instantly apparent.
Not that Dugger will ever bother to do anything harder than cutting and pasting. Funny that he’s so eager to deploy the term “cut and run” given his cowardly behavior on a freaking blog discussion thread.
For good measure, here’s a cite explaining why David Kane’s paper on the 2004 study fails to meet the standards of his profession: http://crookedtimber.org/2007/07/27/alice-in-wonderland-and-the-lancet-study/
“No succesful T attacks on American soil since 9/11.”
Jesus, keerist. So fucking what? You’d think 9-11 would be enough to blacken the record of any president permanently … or are we not counting 9-11 because, you know, it was Clinton’s fault? Please.
Conservatives seem to believe that Bush was great at thwarting terrorism right up to 9-11, then that day was Clinton’s fault, but right after that, 9-12, bam, Bush was back in charge.
There’s absolutely no reason to believe that Bush’s policies post-9-11 have done anything to prevent another terrorist attack in America that Clinton or Bush weren’t doing before. It’s only a matter of time before there’s another attack on US soil — or would you deny even this eventuality? — and then what Dugger? Do you go back to blaming liberals and Clinton or will Bush finally have to take some responsibility for something?
Yes, Dugger. Not Counting the 5 people who died in the Anthrax attack the week after 9/11, who are insignificant (and I’m sure their families will be glad you told them so) and 9/11 itself, the largest terrorist attack against on U.S. soil in recent memory, and not counting the attacks against American Embassies overseas which are legally considered U.S. soil, and not counting the resurgence of terrorist attacks abroad, and not counting the fact that a not-insignificant portion of our national guard is no longer in America but rather deployed abroad, yeah, Bush has made us all kinds of safe. I get all warm and tingly just thinking about how fucking safe I am.
Explain then, oh Dugg one, in what way exactly are we safe? Borders aren’t secure, Ports aren’t secure, Airports aren’t secure (I know a guy who works for TSA, his job is to go through security checkpoints with weapons. He does this for several different airports (BWI among them), ten or so times a day, and has been stopped a total of twice over three years) and as far as the Anthrax attacks that completely didn’t happen, our Postal Service isn’t really more secure either. Please explain to me, stupid, dishonest progressive that I must be because you call me as much, how we are safer? What are we now safe from that we weren’t before?
By the way, Dugger, Kane estimates 100 thousand violent deaths in Iraq from March 2003-June 2004. How many non violent? Maybe 1-200k. Add those together and you get a ballpark of 250 thousand deaths. That’s way over your own meager assertions. So how do you want it, Dugger? Do you agree with Kane or not?
How many terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/10/01?
Shorter Dugger: Anthrax? Sorry, I’m not familiar with that.
All hail the new Exalted Presidente for Life of Asshatistan!
Dugger, is it true that the Kane article is as yet unreviewed and unpublished, and that he gave it to MICHELLE MALKIN for distribution? Would you like to take a wager on its eventual publication in a peer-reviewed journal?
Here is Kane in his own words: “the answer to the second question is something like 264,000 CI (-130,000 — 659,000), as I argue in my paper.”
Cite: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/07/david_kane_on_lancet_confidenc.php#comment-513812
So Dugger, are you on the record saying that excess death in Iraq as a result of the war is 264,000 dead and not 20 thousand or whatever it was you claimed?
“Explain then, oh Dugg one, in what way exactly are we safe?”
Statistically, we are safe from terrorist attacks on our soil since 9/11. Oxycon showed all those overseas attacks where Bush was not in charge – yet none here – where Bush was in charge.
That speaks for itself.
“yet none here – where Bush was in charge”
Except 9/11 and the anthrax attacks. Admit it; you’re paid by Howard Dean to make conservatives look retarded.
Statistically, we are safe from terrorist attacks on our soil since 9/11. Oxycon showed all those overseas attacks where Bush was not in charge – yet none here – where Bush was in charge.
That speaks for itself.
Posted by: Dugger | Jul 31, 2007 2:25:11 PM
=============================
According to Dugger’s own logic “an honest conservative” would have to give President Clinton alot of credit for preventing terrorist attacks against “the Homeland”, since only one occured here, which happened in the first month of his 8 year Presidency.
Yet, that isn’t the case, is it?
***Big oops! I forgot the major right wing terrorist attack in Oklohoma City carried out by a mentally imbalanced right winger.
And the Atlanta Olympics bombing carried out by another mentally imbalanced right winger.
When you get right down to it, 99% of all terrorist attacks are carried out by mentally unstable right wingers. Why is that?
99% of all terrorist attacks are carried out by mentally unstable right wingers.
Let’s point out, on US soil.
Don’t feed the trolls.
“Explain then, oh Dugg one, in what way exactly are we safe?”
Statistically, we are safe from terrorist attacks on our soil since 9/11. Oxycon showed all those overseas attacks where Bush was not in charge – yet none here – where Bush was in charge.
That speaks for itself.
It, in fact, does not. I ask for clarifaction of what makes us safer, since that is your contention. Your assumption seems to be that, de facto, Bush In Charge = More Safe, based on your point, which you refuse to elaborate upon or explore further, that there hasn’t been a Continental U.S. terror attack on his watch since the last Continental U.S. terror attack on his watch. Ignoring that this same “argument” can show that my wristwatch keeps me safe from falling meteors (I havent been hit yet while wearing it… not counting those times I was hit while wearing it) it still doesn’t explain how, if we are safer, we have come to be safer. I was, in my question, making, for sake of argument, the huge concession that you’re right, and we are safer, and was asking you to explain how that happened. If all you can come back with is the fact that there hasn’t been an attack since the last one (help me out here friends, is this redundant or tautological?) and Bush happened to be president during this time since the last one, then can I interest you in a wristwatch?
“Statistically, we are safe from terrorist attacks on our soil since 9/11. Oxycon showed all those overseas attacks where Bush was not in charge – yet none here – where Bush was in charge.”
Banging. Head. Against. Wall.
oxy, Big ‘oops’ is right. You screwed up again. The Atanta bombing was pre-Bush. And if you will go the terrorism data base cited here by OW (MIPT) earlier, you will find that the huge majority of post 9/11 terrorism attacks on US soil have been by left wing environmental (no doubt trying to to move the global warming discussion along) and animal rights groups. Don’t take my word for it – research the database. Left wing wackos, not right wing wackos.
No rex, my assumption is that since we have done a sh*tpot of things to make this country safer from terorist attacks since 9/11 – under Bush’s leadership- and that since there have no successful significant terrorist attacks on US soil since then – then we are safer. The guy in charge gets the blame or the credit. In this case – credit. That doesn’t seem unreasonable to me – but then I don’t hate Bush.
“The guy in charge gets the blame or the credit. In this case – credit.”
Damn Dugger. But in what case — blame?
By you logic isn’t Bush to blame for 9-11? Or maybe you should just share with us the day that you think a president becomes responsible for what happens on his watch because apparently it isn’t day one.
But listen, it isn’t exactly like this country has EVER been plagued by terrorism. Seriously. Especially not relative to the rest of the world.
You make it sound like there was some kind of raging wave of terrorist activity that Bush just put a stop to. But there wasn’t.
Terrorist attacks are such a rare fucking occurrence in the United States to try to make a lack of terrorist attacks a plus is like suggesting that we heap all kinds of praise on Bush for protecting us from meteors.
The world you in live simply boggles the mind.
we have done a sh*tpot of things to make this country safer from terorist attacks since 9/11.
Such As What?! Honestly, Kreskin, tell me what has been done? In what way are we safer? How have we been made safer? How does Bush being president have any more bearing on our “safety” than my lucky meteor-proof watch? Can you answer any of these questions to yourself even? Or you just going to call us all blind bush haters so you never have to?
Poor Dugger.
As with most conservatives, he believes what other misguided conservatives tell him.
WRT the Lancet Study, David Kane admits he, too, agrees with the results of the Lancet study, not the methodology.
In what way are we safer?
Well, come on, when was the last time someone spilled a drink on you on a plane?
frame
It doesn’t matter. All of this gets back to a deeper philosophical question: does any President really deserve credit for what happens on his watch – even if he supported it. JFK didn’t fly to the moon. Reagan didn’t tear the wall down himself. You can choose to give them credit or not. But if you do give them credit, then Bush should get credit for no significant terrorist incidents on US soil since 9/11. Not that that compares with going to the moon or tearing down the wall, but the principal is the same. Actually its true of the Clinton economy. Lots of my amigos argue tech bubble, Republican congress etc. Nope. He gets credit. They would sure as hell blamed him if it went in the tank just as sure as every stinkin’ person on this site would blame Bush if there was a huge successful T attack on our soil. You know thats right.
And guys, Kane from Harvard is just one of many to tear that shoddy piece of Peoples’ propaganda apart. Its junk. You know I make my argument using sources well to my left, WaPo and Harvard, you aren’t able to do the same.
Uhh JadeGold, read much??
“The point is that, I think, it is a mathematical fact that, if the other information in the paper is correct, the central result (RR 2.5 with confidence interval 1.6 — 4.2) must be wrong.”
Cite your fucking sources if you’re going to argue from authority, Dugger. “WaPo” is not a cite. “Harvard” is not a cite. If you can’t make an argument on your own, you can at least point to those who can. Kane’s non-peer-reviewed analysis has been well addressed above.
And answer the question: if you think Kane’s analysis is correct, do you agree with his conclusion of “264 thousand” Iraqi deaths?
oxy, Big ‘oops’ is right. You screwed up again. The Atanta bombing was pre-Bush. And if you will go the terrorism data base cited here by OW (MIPT) earlier, you will find that the huge majority of post 9/11 terrorism attacks on US soil have been by left wing environmental (no doubt trying to to move the global warming discussion along) and animal rights groups. Don’t take my word for it – research the database. Left wing wackos, not right wing wackos.
Posted by: Dugger | Jul 31, 2007 5:16:57 PM
==========================
#1. I clearly stated that the right wing Atlanta Olympics bombing/murders took place under President Clinton.
#2. I don’t think anyone in their right mind would equate slashing the tires of a Humvee (i.e. “Left wing wackos”) as an act of terrorism, no matter how stupid an act it may be.
Terrorism is when you murder a group of innocent people, and usually the murderers are for the most part right wing extremists.
Dugger, saying that there has been no terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11 because of Bush’s policies is logically fallacious because it is a gross oversimplification of the various elements at play.
First, it is very possible that there haven’t been any successful terrorist attacks inside the U.S. since 9/11 because, well, terrorists haven’t made any serious efforts in that regards. It is much more efficient to weaken the U.S. — whose dollar is now dangerously sinking with regards to other currencies, such as the Euro — by keeping it embroiled in a costly and impopular overseas conflict that is alienating allies, causing internal division and tarnishing America’s image of military might abroad. The only people that would really benefit from another terrorist strike in the US would actually be Bush himself, because that would reassert his influence (and that of his party); for Al Qaeda and Bin Laden, it is much better to fight the US in Iraq (a lesson Bin Laden learned from the CIA in Afghanistan, as the US-backed Mujahedin bled the Soviets dry in the 80’s).
The other thing to consider is that, if those few half-assed attempts (shoe bomber, anyone?) have failed, it’s also because people whose job it is to protect the US against threats (as well as Joe Sixpack, to a degree) have simply been more vigilant after 9/11. The events of that had such a profund impact on all of us that it has in fact brought everyone to take potential attacks more seriously, which itself has made such attacks less likely. There have been virtually no hijacking since 9/11, because terrorists now know that passengers would no longer hesitate to overpower them if they tried.
Things are not nearly as simplistic as you present them.
And really, does it matter that much if it has been 100,000 Iraqi deaths, 600,000 or 1,000,000? How many is “okay”, according to you? How many would be okay if they were Americans? For the past four years, innocent people have died at a greater rate than under Saddam, and general quality of life has plummeted across the country, with the exception of Kurdistan, which now finds itself on the verge of an open war with Turkey.
The war in Iraq has further destabilized the region, it has compromised strategic interests in the Persian Gulf, it has fueled a murderous cycle of reprisal between Shias and Sunnis, it has weakened the US’s standing in the world. Not a single good thing that has come out of this. If only for that, you should condemn George W. Bush, but you won’t, because you are blinded by your own bias.
“Statistically, we are safe from terrorist attacks on our soil since 9/11.”
Good god, Dugger, you are a fucking retard. Every time you say that, you are bringing up the fact that the biggest terrorist attack on American soil happened while George Bush was president. Also, the people responsible are still at large, and are as strong as ever according to the American intelligence community.
There were 8 years between major attacks on US soil previously, so 6 years without an attack is meaningless.
“It doesn’t matter.”
Of course it doesn’t dugger because you’re an idiot. If you want to give credit to Bush for no terrorist attacks since 9-11, make the case for why he deserves it. But if you just want to grant him credit because he happens to be the idiot with his ass in the chair behind the desk, then you have to give him some if not all of the blame for 9-11. You don’t get to absolve him of the worst terrorist attack in the us history and praise him for keeping us safe afterward. All you seem to want to do is heap specious praise on the guy.
JFK gets credit for the space program but also carries the baggage of the bay of pigs.
It’s a weak, totally a historical case to suggest that Reagan ended the cold war but even if I were to give you that , he still traded arms for hostages with a terrorist state.
Bush was president when the worst terrorist attack in our history occurred but for some reason you only want to give him credit for keeping us safe beginning the day after.
Hell, you assholes even want to blame the democrats for what’s happening in iraq. I defy you to suggest a single policy enacted by the democrats that has lead to the current disaster in that country — aside from their craven support of every Bush policy put before them until 2006.
oxy
1. Yes yuo did.
“2. I don’t think anyone in their right mind would equate slashing the tires of a Humvee (i.e. “Left wing wackos”) as an act of terrorism, no matter how stupid an act it may be.”
Go to the MIPT data base. Its not me saying that (and it is more than slashing tires). I learned about MIPT from OW who was using it to bash godless Republicans for some crime or other against mankind.
And frame, ther have clearly been several terroist plots thwarted since 9-11. There have been very visible and sometimes annoying programs (airport delays). thre has been increased surveillance (which Congress is pissing about all the time). these and others are clearly measures pushed by the Admin and we have had no terrorist attacks.
But I’m OK if you take the position that Reagan gets no credit for the Berlin Wall coming down, JFK no credit for the moon, FDR no credit for coming out of the Depression etc. Or do you argue that liberal presidents get credit for what happens on their watch and conservative ones or moderate ones like Bush, get no credit – by definition.
archie
Read the whole thread and then write. It makes more sense. You will note that I easily acknowledege the potential argument to be made that presidents -per se- don’t deserve credit. But I insist that if the ultra ‘realistic standard is applied then it be applied to all presidents and people. then we can talk about every political or social hero in history. You guys generally hate Bush and you want to say what works well under Bush is not to his credit and what fails under him – is.
I ain’t buying that piece of pudding. Either give Bush credit or rewrite history.
“But I’m OK if you take the position that Reagan gets no credit for the Berlin Wall coming down, JFK no credit for the moon, FDR no credit for coming out of the Depression etc.”
Fuck you, Dugger.
Can you tell me what Reagan did to defeat communism? If not, then he gets no credit for is collapsing while he is in office. Is that really too complicated for you?
Dugger, Here’s what Bush gets credit for.
1) He was the president at the time of the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil in our history. He did this with a sizable amount of intel indicating that it would happen in precisely the way that it did.
2) He gets credit for a multi-trillion dollar war that was claimed to benefit our fight against terrorism but actually exacerbated the problem, creating more terrorists and more motivation to fight.
3) He gets credit for working in accord to disregard the recommendations of the 9/11 commission until a new Democratic majority forced the issue.
4) He gets credit for undermining the constitution with destructive, extra-legal surveillance programs.
I don’t hate the guy, but I do think he is the worst president in the history of America.
Hmm Bush is worst you say. Well many, many many more died in war under FDR, JFK and LBJ. So there goes all your war arguments. Jimmy Carter gave us an economy from Hell with a horrendous 22% misery index (and then in his old age turned into a vicious anti-semite). Thre goes your economic arguments. Wait maybe Bush is the most immoral president in history . Except for Bubba’s proclivity for having sex with interns under his power (and anybody else except his wife).
Except for being refuted on every point, excellent case Zadura.
No, no, no, Bush is the most immoral president because he is a TORTURER, Dugger. He is the worst president because he made the STUPIDEST STRATEGIC BLUNDER in U.S. history. Get it straight.
And in all seriousness, Dugger’s writing and arguments appear to have taken a turn toward the incoherent. Did you have a stroke, buddy?
Also, I guess Dugger lost interest in outsourcing his arguments on the 2004 Lancet study altogether once he learned his outsourcer believes there’ve been 264,000 deaths. And what about the 2006 study, Dugger? You never even mentioned that one! Is mumbling “WaPo, WaPo, WaPo” really the best you can do? At least you’re beginning to concede the moral enormity of Bush’s failures.
Does any President really deserve credit for what happens on his watch – even if he supported it. JFK didn’t fly to the moon. Reagan didn’t tear the wall down himself. But if you do give them credit, then Bush should get credit for no significant terrorist incidents on US soil since 9/11.
Even if I conceded your point here re: Presidential Credit, and so help me zombie jeebus I very nearly almost kinda do, The corrolary is still unfair. If it were the case that there were no terrorist attacks during W’s term at all I might even grudgingly cede the argument at this point, since whether or not he was the cause the effect still manifests. However this isn’t the case, obviously, and the problem then is obfuscating the terms.
Arguing that he deserves the credit simply the time frames of His Presidency and No Terror Attacks coincide in the same way that Reagan and Communism or Clinton and the Economy do is, I think, fucking insane. Firstly, Bush has been the only president so far since 9/11 so theres little if any credit to actually give. Secondly, youre pointing to the fact that, and I’m paraphrasing, “Since the last major terror attack, there’ve been no major terror attacks” which is tautological, and ultimately meaningless. The truth of that statement would remain intact today even if Osama had dropped an atomic bomb on Houston yesterday. Its also as true today as it was on 9/12/01, and I have a hard time believing that even you could, with a straight face, make the argument that “Well, in spite of the attacks of yesterday morning, I think Bush deserves the credit for there having not been another attack in the last 18 hours.” It would be insanity to claim so, true though it technically would be.
Third, you’re arguing credit by coincidence, then you also have to see blame by coincidence too. Indeed you’re doing so by putting the entirety of the 1977-80 Misery Index (and for the record, its not actually a percentage) on Carter’s shoulders, and yet conceding credit to Clinton for “his” economy. So, if you want to credit Bush with there being no attacks since 9/11, then you also have to blame him for it happening in the first place.
To clarify, I’m not saying you actually should blame him. For chrissake even I don’t and I hate the sonofabitch with the white hot intensity of a thousand suns, but if you even want to pretend your argument is consistant in any useful way, then for him to take coincidental credit, he also has to get coincidental blame.
Ok Dugger, we’ve been down this road before. You’re an idiot and you’re nuts and you’re probably off your meds.
You keep forgetting that there were terrorist plots thwarter under Clinton, probably under Bush I, Reagan, every fucking president we can think of but they weren’t ballyhooed to high heaven because the president was playing propaganda games with law enforcement to win elections. The fact of the matter is that we’ve never, ever in our history had a fucking problem with terrorism. EVER. We went just as many years without a terrorist attack under Clinton as we have under Bush. You want to praise the terrorist stopping powers of Clinton, yet?
And through it all, you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that Bush was on the watch, commander in chief, the fucking guy in charge when the worst terrorist attack in American history ocurred.
If he get credit for stopping terrorism now, he should get the blame for failing to stop it then. You agree?
frame
You ignore the fact that the US under Bush took many steps to thwart terrorist attacks on our soil after 9/11. Many of those steps are being argued abour today. You can’t ignore that. It was his job. Again, if he had failed and there had been an attack many progressives would have been overjoyed to blame the whole attack on Bush. There is a gray area here about presidential credit. I freely admit that. But the standard needs to be consistent.And if you think Bush had specific knowledge about 9/11 and nothing to stop it, thats your perogative. I bet duros and C McKinney would agree w/you. I know I don’t.
I give Bush some credit for no terrorist attacks since 9/11, but a major demerit for 9/11. Verdict: Bush’s terror record on balance is negative.
I give Bush some credit for no terrorist attacks since 9/11, but a major demerit for 9/11. Verdict: Bush’s terror record on balance is negative.
You ignore the fact that the US under Bush took many steps to thwart terrorist attacks on our soil after 9/11. Many of those steps are being argued abour today.
Or they would be, if, and I’m asking for what, the fourth time now I think, you could point to one way in which we are demonstrably safer. Air traffic? Ports? Borders? Hell, even the Star Wars Shield Program? Anything at all?
Again, if he had failed and there had been an attack…
Goddamit, seriously explain how 9/11 just plain doesn’t count? How do you justify to yourself coming up with more and more obtuse and arbitrary criteria to justify keeping the Bush As Anti-Terror Good Luck Charm meme alive? How many times are you going to let yourself replant the fucking goalposts man?
“No Terror attacks against the U.S. during Bush’s presidency.”
“But they’re killing Americans.”
“Well then No Terror attacks on U.S. soil during Bush’s presidency.”
“But they’ve attacked our Embassies, which are considered to be U.S. soil.”
“Well then No Terror Attacks on Mainland U.S. soil during Bush’s presidency.”
“What about the Shoe Bomber, I mean really he was only stopped because his lighter didnt work while he was trying to detonate the damn thing?”
“Well then No Successful Terror Attacks on Mainland U.S. Soil during Bush’s presidency.”
“You know the Anthrax thing hit like 25 or so people, killed 5.”
“Well then No Significant Successful Terror Attacks on Mainland U.S. Soil during Bush’s presidency.”
“And what about 9/11 itself then?”
“Well then No Significant Successful Terror Attacks on Mainland U.S. Soil, during Bush’s presidency, since the last one.”
And once that goalpost is reached, one can imagine quantifiers like “on an even numbered weekend of a prime number month in a major US city with exactly two vowels in its name that isn’t New York” to further maintaon the proof of the self-evident magnificence of George W. Bush’s magical anti-terrorist mojo.
Rex,
No I don’t. There is a reasonable threshold of actionability. No serious adult contends Bush had 9/11 pre-knowledge and could have prevented it. And I might point out the operation was in motion before Bush. Did Bush magically know and Bubba not? Is it really likely either Pres could have done anything to prevent it? No, I say.
But after 9/11, when we had specific knowledge of the threat, Bush did a number of things and despite attempts, no successful attacks.
And by successful attack, I don’t mean a loner type thing. No one, any place can prevent a powder mailer or Andrew McCrae type from attacking someone. But a successful terorist attack/operation – no.
Wasn’t there something entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike the U.S.” that mention using hijacked planes as missiles? You know that thing that the Clinton WH passed on to them that Condi just put in her desk and never looked at?
But hey, no major metropolitan areas lost to floodwaters since Katrina!
W00t! Go team!
Good thing I’ve got my Anti-floodwater Underoos on.
Is it really likely either Pres could have done anything to prevent it? No, I say.
When someone calls the FBI and says theres this Middle Eastern guy who wants to learn how to fly a 747, but he doesn’t want to learn how to land it, and he wants to know in, like 3 hours, and the FBI does nothing and doesn’t feel it’s worth talking about to, oh, I dunno, anybody else, kinda makes me feel that steps could have been taken to stop it, thwart it or at least slow it down.
“Is it really likely either Pres could have done anything to prevent it? No, I say.”
That’s really all you need to know about Dugger to assess his honesty and credibility. He’s a slave to the GOP, through and through.
Sad thing is, he doesn’t even know it.
Dugger, even with 9/11 off the table, you have to admit that Bush has been a miserable failure. The things he DID do – Terrorist Surveillance Program, invading Iraq, not following through on Afghanistan – are either illegal and anti-American or have been hugely counterproductive. The things he DIDN’T do – 9/11 Commission recommendations – could have resulted in a second 9/11. This man gets absolutely no credit for anything except duping the rubes into a false sense of security.
Is it really likely either Pres could have done anything to prevent it? No, I say.
This is a different argument, and I would be willling to concede that the event itself probably could not have been completely stopped, but considering, as previously mentioned, the threat of terrorism existed before 9/11 as much as after, the major issue to reconcile is, after the Clinton administration worked so much on catching Osama and told Bush that they’d end up spending alot of time on it, after the August 6 PDB (”Bin Laden determined to strike…”) and after the “doesn’t want to learn how to land” warnings and everything else, that even with those warnings so very little was done re: terrorism (and again, its most likely that nothing could have stopped the attack, but the point is that nothing was even tried) and yet in spite of that, the meme now is that Bush is a great anti-terror president. I’d argue that, if it actually takes a massive terrorist attack to get someone to start paying attention to terrorism, then that person probably isnt so keen on it as you’d prefer to think, no matter how much they’re trying, however sincerely, to get on top of the issue after the fact.
No one, any place can prevent a powder mailer or Andrew McCrae type from attacking someone.
…so then we’re safer how exactly?
“Again, if he had failed and there had been an attack many progressives would have been overjoyed to blame the whole attack on Bush.”
Wow dugger. I’m glad we no longer have to worry about terrorism again, now that the window of opportunity seems to now reside in the past tense — all because of George Bush.
Here’s another side of the infantility of your point. You are claiming some great victory for Bush over something that
1) Has historically never really a problem in the US.
2) Can never be said to have been finally, ultimately resolved.
Bush can only get credit for preventing terrorist attacks right up until there’s another terrorist attack, which everyone, ESPECIALLY the Bush administration tells us is inevitable.
The fact of the matter is that having 1 terrorist attack occur on your watch pretty much launches you right near the top of “Worst Record on Terrorism Prevention” in this country. Bush has the dubious distinction of being president when the worst terrorist attack in our history, indeed in history period, occurred.
If there is another terrorist attack in the US, god forbid, before Bush is out of office, he will have a worse record on terrorism than any other sitting president. If there isn’t another attack, he would still have the worst record on terrorism than any other president because the worst terrorist attack in our history, indeed, all history, happened on his watch.
His legacy is pretty much sealed at this point on this issue.
“But the standard needs to be consistent.And if you think Bush had specific knowledge about 9/11 and nothing to stop it, thats your perogative.”
And please tell me that you are not suggesting Bush had specific knowledge of every thwarted terrorist attack since 9-11, as if he personally gave the call to stop them. Talk about being consistent …
This is the part where Dugger cuts and runs from this thread, right?
“Hmm Bush is worst you say. Well many, many many more died in war under FDR, JFK and LBJ. So there goes all your war arguments.”
You are comparing WWII to the second Iraq War. You are official fucking retarded. Your argument dies here.
“Jimmy Carter gave us an economy from Hell with a horrendous 22% misery index (and then in his old age turned into a vicious anti-semite). Thre goes your economic arguments.”
The economy was hit hard by the 1979 energy crisis, but didn’t do enough right to fix it. He wasn’t a good president in that account.
Bush took record surpluses and turned them into record deficits.
Bush is worse than Carter.
“Wait maybe Bush is the most immoral president in history . Except for Bubba’s proclivity for having sex with interns under his power (and anybody else except his wife).”
Authorizing torture and committing war crimes is worse than getting a blow job?
Get killed.
Giuliani’s sex life is more immoral than Bill Clinton’s. Dugger, do you even know how he met his current (third) wife?
“the meme now is that Bush is a great anti-terror president.”
Where is that meme. I don’t subscribe to it. I believe Bush should get credit for no major successful T attacks on US soil since 9-11. No more. No less. And could it be partially coincidence? You bet and it doesn’t matter. He’s president. It was his job to stop attacks. He did a bunch of stuff. The attacks stopped. Ipso facto. Don’t like it? Rewrite all of history. Demand actual proof great men actually did the deeds they are renown for. Churchill flew fighters. MLK passed laws. LBJ funded the Great Society out of his pockets.
“He’s president. It was his job to stop attacks. He did a bunch of stuff. The attacks stopped.”
Because we all remember the Clinton years when there were all those successful terrorist attacks. Jesus what a dark time that was…
According to your last post Dugger, any president in the history of the united states can still claim a better record on stopping terrorism than George Bush. And they all get high marks for totally thwarting all those zombie attacks!
Sure they can CLAIM it, frame, but the key is how much of a threat was there in earlier times? Bush ’s actions followed the most horrific attack on American soil ever and evidence that the enemy wanted to attack us again and couldn’t successfully..
And he let himself get suckered into a pointless, immensely costly war that hurt our anti-terrorism efforts, almost as though he was doing Osama bin Laden’s bidding directly. If you want context, that’s the context, Dugger.
“Bush ’s actions followed the most horrific attack on American soil ever and evidence that the enemy wanted to attack us again and couldn’t successfully…”
Jesus. It goes on. Dugger, when exactly did the “terrorists” start wanting to attack us? Was it 9-11 or was it before? You’d think you’d at least begin counting from the first world trade center bombing which would give Clinton a pretty solid record — better than Bush’s mind you — of preventing domestic Islamic terrorist attacks, right?
At the same time, that only underscores that the threat from terrorism was there before 9-11 but Bush did nothing about it until AFTER 9-11. Again, if you’re going to give him credit for stopping all these terrorist attacks post 9-11, you have to put 9-11 itself in the blame column. Otherwise, you know, you’re just being an idiot hack.
And I’ll just ask this again, god forbid there’s another attack during Bush’s watch, what will you say then? Oh well, he can’t be expected to stop them all? Quite a flexible criteria for praise you’ve got there dugs …
“when exactly did the “terrorists” start wanting to attack us?’
I don’t know, but I would not at all doubt that terorists of form or another have wanted to attack this country since day one (remember the anarchist bombings after WWI). The degree, severity and sophistication of the threat are clearly what matters and those ramped up exponentially with 9/11.
And if there’s another major successful attack on US soil, then Bush gets a black mark – whether he’s truly at core at fault or not. Likewise, if one happens under the new Dem President, she will get a big ol’ demerit. Same principal in reverse.
“…then Bush gets a black mark – whether he’s truly at core at fault or not.”
But apparently this doesn’t count for 9-11 itself? I know you remember 9-11 because you seem to think that the terrorist threat got worse AFTER it, as if before 9-11, you know, when the terrorists were planning it, there was no threat to be watchful for …
Jesus you’re an idiot.
“But apparently this doesn’t count for 9-11 itself?”
Why no frame. When we are debating the point as to whether the country is safer SINCE 9/11, we would not include 9/11. Nicht wahr?
And, free advise, I don’t think I would be claiming the T threat isn’t sigbnificant after 9/11.
Dugger wrote: “Read the whole thread and then write. It makes more sense.”
I did read the entire thread, and still your argument does not stand on logic.
“You will note that I easily acknowledege the potential argument to be made that presidents -per se- don’t deserve credit. But I insist that if the ultra ‘realistic standard is applied then it be applied to all presidents and people.”
There is no logical argument for this. One president might deserve credit for something he did during his mandate, while another might not. It depends on whether *they* took actions that had an impact on the situation (positive or negative). To simply say that “if one President deserves credit, all Presidents deserve credit” is not a logical argument. This is like saying that, if a Hockey goalie was instrumental in delivering victory for his team once, then all goalies are responsible for giving their team victory all the time. It just doesn’t make sense.
“then we can talk about every political or social hero in history. You guys generally hate Bush and you want to say what works well under Bush is not to his credit and what fails under him – is.”
And you want to say that if people give credit to Clinton for the economy during his terms, they should automatically give credit to Bush for the fact that there were no terrorist attacks during his terms. The problem with that is that there is *no* logical link between the two statements. It could be very well be that Clinton *did* make policy decisions that were beneficial to the economy, while at the same time Bush benefited from a lull in terror attack attempts on the US.
Again, saying that one deserves credit just because the other is given credit makes no logical sense, and from that fallacious statement your entire argumentation falls down like a house of cards.
“I ain’t buying that piece of pudding. Either give Bush credit or rewrite history.”
No. Bush will deserve credit only if it can be proved that his decisions had an actual impact on specific terror threats against the U.S. Without that data (which you could perhaps provide to us), you can’t give him any credit – especially since the Iraq war has *increased* the animosity towards Americans worldwide, and arguably weakened the US’s military power.
So we aren’t counting 9-11 in a discussion about Bush’s record on terrorism. Good to know.
That’s a bit like discussing the safety record of the White Star Line without being able to reference the Titanic, but you seem comfortable with delusion, so what the hell.
This is, of course, why you also don’t want to actually discuss how and why the terrorist threat “ramped up exponentially” after 9-11.
Bush ignored the threat that terrorism posed to this country before 9-11 and then enacted policies that have inflamed and radicalized a segment of the Muslim world after it.
It’s kind of bullshit to take claim you saved a house from fire, when you’re the dickhead who first ignored the flames, then started fanning them … them claimed victory over the fire while it was still burning…
At the same time, another successful terrorist attack is inevitable. Right? Or do you disagree?
There were also eight years between the first and the second world trade center attacks. (and please tell me you think that the terrorist threat wasn’t high during that period as well.)
If we got hit by another terrorist attack in 2009, that would pretty much give Bush the same record on terrorism as Clinton, only Clinton didn’t have to burn down half the fucking middle east, spend billions of dollars and sacrifice thousands of US lives to achieve it. Nicht wahr?
idiot.
frame
This was the first pertinent remark on the thread re this topic: “Actually, the Republicans have done a rather good job on terrorism – no signifcant attacks on US soil since 9/11.”
See the ’since 9/11′ part. Now if you wish to concede my point and move on to a discussion of 9/11 in isolation or all terrorist attacks before 9/11 we can.
archie
“Bush will deserve credit only if it can be proved that his decisions had an actual impact on specific terror threats against the U.S”
Thats bullsh*t. Show me where Kennedy paid for, designed, built or flew a space vehicle. He didn’t. But you are are still wrong about Bush:
West Coast Airliner Plot:
In mid-2002 the United States disrupted a plot to use hijacked airplanes to attack targets on the West Coast of the United States. The plotters included at least one major operational planner behind the September 11, 2001 attacks.
2. East Coast Airliner Plot:
In mid-2003 the United States and a partner disrupted a plot to use hijacked commercial airplanes to attack targets on the East Coast of the United States.
3. The Jose Padilla Plot:
In May 2002 the United States disrupted a plot that involved blowing up apartment buildings in the United States. One of the alleged plotters, Jose Padilla, allegedly discussed the possibility of using a “dirty bomb” inside the United States. Bush has designated him an “enemy combatant.”
Be honest. Your objection is merely based on Bush hatred. Either rewrite history or Give Bush credit. Can’t have it both ways. (but maybe you argue Kennedy gets no credit for man on the moon)
“Either rewrite history or Give Bush credit. Can’t have it both ways.”
This is hilarious. For some reason we have to separate 9-11 out from the history of the Bush administration but give it all the credit in the world for stopping terrorist attacks since 9-11 — and yet you accuse others of re-writing history and acting inconsistently.
You act as if Bush’s job to protect us from terrorism started only after 9-11.
At the same time, you completely ignore the fact that Clinton’s policies kept us just as safe from Islamic terror after the first World Trade Center bombing as Bush’s have post 9-11, although we’ll see, Bush has yet to finish his term. The major difference being that 9-11 was the worst act of terrorism in history and it happened on Bush’s watch.
I don’t have a problem with giving Bush credit for anything he’s done, if he deserves it. All I’ve seen is a massive grab for power, an assault on the constitution and a tragic foreign policy that has left America less safe because the world is now more unstable, more dangerous.
He did all this to achieve the same results Clinton achieved and he has yet to finish his term, so we’ll see …
And jesus, please, if you’re going to hold out Jose Padilla as an example of the diabolic forces that Bush has kept at bay, you have no argument at all.
I think the only logical conclusion we can draw from Dugger ignoring 9/11 as a negative part of Bush’s “legacy” is that Dugger considers 9/11 to be a good thing.
“Thats bullsh*t. Show me where Kennedy paid for, designed, built or flew a space vehicle. He didn’t.”
Don’t be stupid. Kennedy decided to increase funding for space exploration and clearly stated that he wanted the US to reach the moon within the decade. It happened, and the political will he put behind it helped make it happen.
This is completely different from protecting the citizenry, something which *every* president *must* do. Keeping America safe is not a “great achievement”, it’s a bare minimum. If you can’t achieve that, you don’t deserve the job, period.
Meanwhile, if you look at the goals that Bush has set for himself (i.e. catch OBL, bring stability and democracy to Iraq), then it is clear that he has failed at those (unlike, say, the Space Exploration legacy of Kennedy). That’s because Bush is a lousy president, and will be remembered by history as one of the worst. You, meanwhile, will have wasted your time arguing in favor of a loser’s catastrophic policies on the Internet.
“Be honest. Your objection is merely based on Bush hatred.”
No, my reasoning is based on logic and observation. Your reasoning, on the other hand, is based on your emotional idolizing of George W. Bush. The problem is that you haven’t realized that the opinion of the twenty-seven-percenters is no longer relevant. Bush has failed, and so do you by continuing to blindly support him.
Wait a minute Archie, Kennedy “decided” to increase funding. Wake up my friend. Congress funds. Not the President. See how easily your ‘argument’ dissolves. You hate Bush so you decide he has actually done nothing. You like Kennedy, so despite the fact that he didn’t fund, fly, design or fix any of the space program hardware, YOU decide he gets credit. Right. I believe Kenendy deserves the credit and Bush too.
“I believe Kenendy deserves the credit and Bush too.”
But only credit, every single one of Bush’s failures and they are legion must be considered separate and apart from Bush’s presidency.