A sign for the ages

I think the fact that there hasn't been another major attack on our soil can give Bush the right to claim somewhat of a victory in the war on terror. The only problem is that's a war every president is going to fight for now on. A victory in Iraq? Not so much.

 

What about England? What about the Russian Elementary School? What about the flocking of Al Queda to Iraq? What about Spain?

Bush said this was a "Global War on Terror".

Hell, what about Afghanistan? The country we pre-maturely pulled out of (okay, we still have some troops there) and is now falling back under Taliban power.

 

Bush is the president of the United States of America. Not England. Not Russsia. Not Iraq. Not Spain.

The war on terror is never going to end. The best Bush can do is keep the terrorists out of America and continue to keep our country safe. He's trying to do so with the rest of the world, but that's impossible. And every president from here on out is going to find that to be true.

P.S. As an admitted West Wing devotee, I just happened to watch Isaac and Ishmael last night before I went to bed. Truly a great TV episode that talks about terrorism.

 

What has Bush done to prevent another attack on this country? Hell, every study that's been done has said we're no safer now than we were in 2001.

Iraq is a terrorist haven, Afghanistan is quickly returning to its old ways, and other than a new color code system to scare the hell out of voters and a shitty piece of legislation designed to give the president unquestionable power, I can't think of a single thing that's been done at the executive level to prevent another attack.

 

Taking that further, the war in Iraq has upset whatever kind of balance there was in the middle east. We took out Iran's biggest rivals (Iraq and Afghanistan), leaving the door open for them to assume the spot of big dog in the mid east (see: nuclear proliferation). Not to mention the thousands of people we pissed off, giving them a reason to hate us or, just as important, not assist us.

Also, North Korea can tell us to piss off while restarting their own nuclear program. And God forbid there's another military operation we have to address in the near futre. Where would the soldiers come from?

There have been no attacks for a lot of reasons. Yes, Bush gets some credit. But as the recent Al Qada attacks in Algeria show, the people who actually attacked us are still out there.

 

You're reading studies. I'm pointing to a fact. There have been no terrorist attacks on our country since 9/11. That's how I know we're safer. The attack on 9/11 could have been the start of more terrorist attacks on our country. Instead, it was the end of those such attacks.

 

andyouare? ... Yes, those people are still out there. If you think ANY president is going to eliminate terrorists across the country, I'd like to have a pipe of whatever you're smoking. This is my last post on this thread, because it's already heading into the direction of most political threads on this board. Bush = bad. There have been countless mistakes by the Bush Administration, and I readily admit I'm a Republican. I can honestly look at Bush and see good things and bad things, much like I could do with Clinton and Obama. But some people subscribe to the theory that no matter what Bush does it's wrong. The guy could cure cancer and you'd find something wrong with it.

Respond if you will, and I'll read it, because I'm open to everybody's ideas. But I'm not responding back.

 

Until there's another one. Then this argument kind of falls flat.

The moon has also not crashed into the earth's surface during Shrub's presidency. Correlation does not equal causation.

And BTW, if an attack not happening since 9/11 is the result of his policies, wouldn't it logically follow that 9/11 happening in the first place was his fault?

 

I think you people arguing two different things. You have to give the administration credit for making it a hell of a lot more difficult for 9/11 to happen again. No one is going to take flight lessons and then pay for a ticket with cash and fly under the radar again. But...the hightened awareness and security is a pretty basic response, and any president or administration would have done the same.

In terms of "is the world a safer place"? I think there's no doubt that it's a hell of lot more fucked up, and this time you can squarely point the finger at W for the whole Iraq fiasco.

 

When did I say Bush was a failure because he didn't eliminate all terrorists? I'm saying he's made the situation worse, which as jboy mentioned, might be a different subject.

 

There have been no attacks since 9/11; therefore the war on terror is working.

Wow. Don't they teach rudimentary logic at schools anymore?

Oh, and SC, Bush doesn't = bad.

Bush = incompetent. And that's one of his better characteristics.

 

Here's a Lotus for you to munch on, SC.



The only reason Al-Qaeda hasn't done anything else here is they're biding their time. They're waiting to make the Big Splash. After killing 3K on 9/11, killing three people with a suicide bomb in some sports bar in Charlotte somehow does not have the same impact on our psyche.

We can stop the big conspiracy (and with 19 people involved, 9/11 was quite a small one that got big quick with luck) but we can't stop every lone wolf. It's just a matter of time. And who says the DC snipers weren't tied in?