Some war on terrorism, eh?
 

I'm not one to say I told you so...so I won't.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6823913/

So instead of successfully controling the one terrorist organization that was directly responsible for attacking us, we've managed to let that one continue, and create an environement for countless others to spring up around it. Mission accomplished indeed.

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up.

I'd like to quote the first paragraph of the story -

"Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of "professionalized" terrorists, according to a report released yesterday by the National Intelligence Council, the CIA director's think tank."

The key word to me is "replaced".

When Afghanistan was dealt with and the Taliban overthrown, the terrorists were not loyal to the Taliban. The terrorists fled. We can theorize about this all we want, but where would they have fled to? The key to that question isn't really the answer, because it doesnt matter. The point is they would have fled somewhere.

Secondly, the article points out that there are more terrorists being recruited in Iraq. Well, weren't terrorists being recruited before the invasion of Iraq? How many terrorist attacks took place prior to the invasion of Iraq? A whole bunch. It was clear that terrorists roles were increasing and that terrorists were becoming more emboldened prior to any action in the middle east.

It is logical to conclude that terrorist numbers would continue to grow. They were before. I believe it is also logical to conclude they are making a stand in Iraq and recruiting there now because they cannot afford democratic government to spread in the region. Afghanistan will not offer them safe haven anymore. If Iraq goes democratic, the very instable regime in Iran could fall (which is why the Iranians are assisting the "insurgency" in Iraq). Should the pattern continue, there will be fewer and fewer countries friendly to them, and eventually there could be none.

As had been pointed out, Saudi Arabia is a breeding ground for terrorists as well. Always has been even with our friendly relations with the royalty. The terrorists hate the Saudi royal family because of this. I'm not a fan of the Saudis either, mind you, and the royals are certainly no real friend of the US, but they do oppose militant Islam because militant Islam wants them dead.

So I do not buy into the theory that our actions in Iraq have made things worse. Things were bad before and were being largely ignored (this is not a blame game - we don't need to rehash 9/11 on Bush's watch nor Clinton refusing the offer to take Osama from the Sudanese). To the contrary, an enemy who wants you dead must be dealt with. While there are many theories on the best way to do it, there is no evidence that it has gotten worse as a result of Iraq. It was getting worse before, and it only makes sense to assume it would be getting worse regardless.

I completely respect those who say that they disagree with the strategy being employed. I happen to think it is the best of what is most likely a long list of not very good possibilities.

The point is, though, that when we went into Iraq, it was supposed to be a war on terrorism. The result? Zero progress on the war on terrorism. None. We've done nothing but take out the one leader in the area that WASN'T a friend to terrorists. Sure, he helped every once in a while, but it was only because he had a common enemy. In reality, the fundamentalists hated him, and he hated the fundamentalists. He was a secularist, and incredibly divisive becasue he made a habit of killing Arabs. Iraq was probably the LEAST threatening country, from a terrorism point of view, in the area.

Okay, Saudi Arabia is a breeding ground for terrorists. Why didn't we go after them there? You say there are other places that they could have gone to, why didn't we chase them there. Why did we instead create a brand new Terrorist Disneyland?

What it all comes down to is that everything that the pre-war detractors said could go wrong, did. That's pretty telling. You're right, war is a complicated thing. It's rare that someone has it completely right and can predict the future. So when that many people DO manage to predict the future this accurately, then those that ignored it missed some pretty obvious stuff.

I disagree again.

First and most obviously, when Qadaffi in Libya saw we were serious about removing world leaders who pursued WMD and could perhaps give those to terrorist organizations, he abandoned his programs allowing inspectors in and giving over all of his nuclear program materials.

I agree that Hussein and bin Laden were not the best of friends, but it is fact that Saddam offered him a psuedo asylum, which was rejected. There is a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" type mentality between them.

Other countries have expelled terrorists. Qatar, Yemen, The UAE, and Pakistan, to name a few, are no longer friendly to terrorists.

Also, remember the deck of cards? I think 48 of those individuals are dead or in captivity. 80% of the leadership (as of 9/11) of Al Qaida is dead or in captivity.

And lastly, the invasion of Iraq was not in and of itself the "war on terror". It was merely a part.

No progress? Hardly.

[quote=Ghoulish Delight]What it all comes down to is that everything that the pre-war detractors said could go wrong, did. /QUOTE]

Actually, if I recall correctly the biggest thing many of the detractors were worried about was a massive chemical attack on our troops(funny how that went from "don't attack, our troops will be gassed" to "we told you there were no chems :rolleyes: ) . So not everything they predicted came to pass.............

This is from Sunday's Washington Post:

President Bush said the public's decision to reelect him was a ratification of his approach toward Iraq and that there was no reason to hold any administration officials accountable for mistakes or misjudgments in prewar planning or managing the violent aftermath.

"We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post. "The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me."

I still hate this arrogant little sh*t.

From this mornings news - Bush says the American people support him in his role in Iraq because he was reelected.

My thought - um - HALF the county reelected him (or slightly more then half) therefore slightly more then half support the war. The other half do not. I realize that's not entirely true - but it's based on the same unreasonable logic that the president used.

Also heard that we have been on secret missions to Iran to map, plot and eventually destroy any sort of nuclear stuff. While I'm all against "nuclear stuff" (my words, not theirs) - just what are we trying to do? Take over that area of the world?

Everybody has heard about these "secret" missions....seems to me that somebody does not want them to be secret....could it be that we are trying to pressure Iran into giving up its Nukes without firing a shot?...after all, we have proved that we are willing to go to war with Iraq over what turned out to be just rumors of wmds; imagine what the Iranian leaders must be thinking knowing that they really do have wmds(or at least the stuff)....if I were them I would be a bit nervous right now.

If you do not or are unwilling to show that your words mean business, as we have in Iraq, then you lose credibility. Iran must take us seriously. I agree with Sleepyjeff - we have shown we are willing to pay the price necessary to back up our words and Iran must take us seriously. These "secret plans" are most likely deliberately leaked to let the Iranians know we mean business.

What was the primary focus of the elections? The war on terror and Iraq. While it could most certainly be the case that a candidate other than Kerry may very well have beaten Bush, it did not happen. When you are elected President, and while close it was a 3 million vote margin, what are you to say? I was reelected so i will not continue with my agenda? I won't continue doing what I think is best?

The issues with the handling of Iraq and terror were clearly the primary issues of the campaign. Whether or not the exact strategy of the administration was endorsed I doubt. However, it is clear that the majority of the American people trusted him to continue with it. This is why he won. I see nothing out of line with those statements.

He can't win- if he stands for what he has been doing he is denounced as arrogant. If he were to change course and flip on everything he would be denounced for that as well- fact is, those who chose to hate him, will hate him no matter what.

I just hate the fact that he says the American people support him in this war because they reelected him. Not true.

Slightly less then half the country did NOT vote for him. Slightly less then half do NOT support the war? That's a LOT of people!

You can't make the assumption that everyone who voted against him did so because of the war- it is entirely possible (and more likely than not) that many voted for someone else for a different reason- and vice versa, you can't assume that everyone who voted for him did so in support of the war. Too much bleed over-

I would say that the reason Bush won the election was not so much that people agree with his handling of the war. It was simply because they didn't like John Kerry.

Bush's approval rating right now is the lowest of any re-elected President in over half a century. The majority of Americans do not believe that Iraq is going well and that approval rating will continue to drop.

His approval ratings just bounced from 47% to 53%....I am not convinced of a downward trend.

Time will tell-

For Mr. Bush to reason that no-one in his administration should be held accountable for the atrocities happening in Iraq is absurd. Moments after the election, everyone was spouting off about how the election was won on "moral issues." So, was it the invasion of Iraq? Moral issues? Social security? Or, possibly, blatant fearmongering on a number of issues?
His arrogance is demonstrated time and time again by his refusal to acknowledge that anything his administration has done might have been done wrong.

Interesting choice of words up there. Not, "there was no reason to hold any administration officials accountable for their actions", but rather for their mistakes or misjudgements. Sorry, but if mistakes and misjudgements were made in prewar planning or managing the violent aftermath, then indeed, someone should be held accountable.

I discovered this site that tracks Bush's approval ratings.

Bet they will bump up even higher right after the Big Day :D

Thanks for the link.

A recent poll shows approvaly of Bush's handling of the war at exactly 49%-49%. He's teetering on the edge of having the lowest approval rating of a second term President at the time of innaugruration in over 50 years. Wow, what an overwhelming mandate.

last I checked it is not a requirement of the POTUS to run the country based on polls....*shrug*

If he's going to throw around terms like "mandate", he better have soemthing to back it up. He's supposed to be the ultimate representative of the people. He's acting as anything but.

He won the election- that means something. You are never going to have it where there is a huge % difference (I would invoke Clinton but I think Wendybeth may kick me for it LOL)

Oops ! Politics. Just passing, folks !

The what now?

The great debate of the representative republic.

Being that the country is closely divided on many issues, how is it possible to represent all the people? Even for a congressman to represent all of those within his/her district? It is not.

So what is an elected official to do? I have always been of the philosophy that when eleccted the official must then do what he/she thinks is best - it is not possible to represent the interests of all issue by issue. It is only possible to go by ones conscience and if enough voters do not like what you have done, they will vote you out.

As an example, Tom Daschle was repeatedly elected in South Dakota even though the state was massively in the republican column. A candidate finally got the populace to see that Daschle was not at all representing them as a majority, and they voted Daschle out. While in office, did Tom Daschle have an obligation to vote more "conservatively"? No. I would suggest he did not represent their more conservative leanings well at all. He finally paid the price at the polls.

I don't disagree that he has to lead the way he feels right, but what I can't abide by is the fact that he's an arrogant prick. It's childish, and dismissive. It's saying, "yeah, half the country disagress with me, but screw 'em all, bwahahahah!" Normally, I can accept that some percentage of the country is going to not be represented, but he himself is inviting this critisizm by strutting around talking about mandates, blatantly ignoring his mistakes, flat out saying he's not going to hold people responsible for making mistakes, and being the arrogant prick that he is.

My, my - so hostile on this joyous inauguration day! Here I am, listening to live Fox News coverage of the blessed event, smiling all the while.

Joyous what now? Say, is there anything good on TV today?

Toot toot.

Protesters Mourn Those Killed in Iraq
:) Good.

Forgive me for not being so joyous about being lead by a small minded, childish braggart.

He ain't leading me.

Maybe not yet... :cheers:

Bush Vows to End Global Tyranny

Bush said he's going to end global tyranny... what's he going to do? Resign?

:D

Takes a while to load, but quite funny! (flash movie with audio)

http://us.i1.yimg.com/advision.webev...SecondTerm.swf

A box of tissues and some lotion, close at hand. ;)

HA-ha!

Sour grapes, I say. While I admit should it be Kerry, I would not be happy, but I've never been one to whine.

You're thinking in terms of winning and losing. Trust me when I say that's not what it's about. I've never seen the candidate I support win a presidential election. I'm quite used to "losing" when it comes to that. No, this election was about right and wrong, not winning and losing. We all lost (top 1% excluded --the rich won and the poor helped them) but some of us don't know it yet.

Really? I don't know how old you are, but that means that you wanted Carter over Reagan, Mondale over Reagan, Dukakis over Bush I, Perot or Bush I over Clinton, Perot or Dole over Clinton, Gore over Bush, and Kerry over Bush.

I find those choices to be....well....interesting.

I understand it isn't all sour grapes. I think there are many out there on the left that are genuinely concerned about the direction of the country and I respect that, and I count you and MBC (among others here) with that group. However, the leadership of the dems, i believe, is more greatly concerned over the loss. They have been losing their power since 1992, and with how things are shaping up, I don't see them getting any back for quite a while.

Hey Sac - did you see reports that government revenue has actually increased since the tax cuts? And that the Fed deficit was only 4.4 billion for the thrid quarter of 2004 because of that increased revenue? Whenever taxes are cut, fed revenue increases because of increased economic activity.

My first interest in politics was Reagan's re-election (I was about 13).

Mondale over Reagan
Dukakis over Bush
Perot over Clinton and Bush
Perot over Clinton and Dole
Nader over Gore and Bush
Kerry over Bush

This election is the first time I ever sold out and actually voted for a two-party candidate (Mondale and Dukakis I wanted to win but I was too young to vote for them).

It wasn't easy growing up in a Republican family.

I don't know which is more depressing - that your parents failed so miserably in raising you ( :D ) or that I'm older than you. Sigh.

Do you have a non-partisan source for this?


Oh, and I love the use of the word "only" when discussing the Federal deficit. Only Bush can get away with bragging that he has a plan to cut the deficit in half. You know, the deficit that is entirely his making. Turning a surplus into a deficit and then being lauded for halving the deficit (which he won't do)....it's like we're living in a bizarro world.

But we're not the leadership of the Democratic party. I don't give a rat's ass about the leadership of a party I'm only affiliated with because I had to pick something. I don't live in the rarified air of the "Beltway," nor am I a political junkie. I'm a small business owner. I have a day-to-day life, filled with such concerns as a president who wants to make the continued marginilization of my life into a constitutional amendment. I live a day-to-day life that involves the embarrassment and shame over Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. Ilive a day-to-day life in which I'm infuriated over the amount of money being wasted this week on inaugurational ass-kissing. I'm still embarrassed over our initial pledges of money towards the Tsunami relief effort.
I don't look to polls to decide what's right and what's wrong. Polls are a lawyer's tool to use against an opponent, not a gauge of decency. If polls were all we needed, Saturday night would be a great night to throw on a toga and go watch Christians being eaten by lions, people love that kind of crap. If polls were all we needed, I'd either be, or have, a slave. Again, popular in the polls. I look to the office of the Presidency to inspire, to lead by example, to set a tone. That's why I hate this man so much. He embarrasses us in front of the entire world. :mad:

Dadgummit!

I took care of it for you, Scrooge.

Silly hippies....

Ah, finally the voice of reason.

Apologies to GD, but I've been using this thread as a dumping ground for my thoughts on Bush.

Today he said he has 'firmly planted the flag of liberty'. What the heck does that mean exactly? He says these things like 'freedom is on the march', 'coalition of the willing', 'global tyranny', and 'axis of evil'... can't he just say what he means without some scripted Rove-ian catch phrase attached? Bleh.

Are there any politicians that don't speak like this? Sheesh!

"Give me Liberty, or Give me Death"

"A house divided against itself cannot stand"

"Walk softly and carry a big stick"

"We have nothing to fear except fear itself"

"The buck stops here"

"Ask not what your country can do for you"

"It depends on what your definition of is is"



Maybe The President is just hoping one of his will stick.

It's just more of the "scope creep" we've seen since the WMD argument turned out to be bogus. I was just reading the speech and now, apparantly, it's always been about freeing the downtrodden and nation building and such. I think we're supposed to forget the WMD reason we were given first and all the other reasons we've been given since. It appears to be working still, just not as well.

Well, that's the corner he's painted himself into. He only has two routes. He's built his current message on such a foundation of lies and denial that his only choices are to continue to repeat the current story like a mantra hoping people believe it's true, or allow the reality of the last 3 years of distortion to come crashing down on him.

My question would be then, why don't any of the criticisms about him stick? I keep thinking if he was a Democrat he'd be impeached by now for Iraq. I strongly believe that if he were a Dem, he would have been blamed for 9/11 not given hero status.
There is zero accountability with this man. Bleh.

But who would have blamed him if he were a Dem?
Who gives him "hero" status now?