But only credit, every single one of Bush’s failures and they are legion must be considered separate and apart from Bush’s presidency.

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.

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 …

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.