I understand and acknowledge what you are trying to say but it depends on how you define "threat" to us all. For instance, 19 high jackers shut down airline travel in this country for at least 24 hours, I don't remember how long?:redface: They also slowed down the economy and helped the airline industry go bankrupt, some went out of business. I acknowledge some of this would've happened anyhow however you have to consider every piece of the puzzle when looking at the big picture. I also believe those families that lost loved ones, those we saw die on 9/11 did affect some of us and still do.
Exactly. Terrorism is a real threat to our national pride, dignity, and morality. It violates our laws and endangers innocent citizens. It just doesn't endanger the existence of the United States.
Define "failure" Red. Don't just state it as a blank fact. Whether you agreed with going into Iraq or not, the fact remains that a murderous dictator and his two barbarian sons who were poised to succeed him are now dead. The world is a better place without them. The surge has worked (something BHO stubbornly won't admit) and Iraq is now as stable as it has been since March of 2003. We now have a base of operations in the ME from which to fight the GWOT. I call all of that something less than a failure. The economy, which the naysayers and pundits continually say is on the verge of tanking, just won't seem to go into that 2 successive quarters of negative growth required for a recession. Up until this recent downswing in the value of the dollar (caused in large part by rising oil prices...something beyond the control of ANY President), we had 7 years of a booming economy. Bush's tax cuts were responsible for that, in large part. I know that I'm better off than I was 8 years ago. I don't call that a failure. Did Mr. Bush spend like a drunken sailor, growing the government at an unprecedented rate? Yes, he did. But the same people trashing him for doing so are quite often the same people "benefitting" the most from government largesse, and would start screaming like a stuck pig if the spending for THEIR programs were cut off. Cut somebody else's program, because you're a bastard if you cut mine. So that's a no-win. The one area I wil give George Bush an "F" on is in terms of solving the illegal immigration policy. For somebody fighting a Global War on Terror, it seems to me that securing the borders would be a top priority. It puzzles me as to why it isn't. I think in the final analysis, history will be far kinder to George Bush than you are, Red. After all, you're not fooling anybody, you're as biased as anybody else, whether you choose to admit it or not. You've never liked the man to begin with. My own grade for him is B-.
Again, it has nothing to do with his name. I think his attitude is the same as Supa and that scares the hell out of me. My use of "B. Hussein Obama" was partly to get a rise out of the libs. Mission accomplished.
Which begs the question: why are liberals so uneasy about the use of his middle name? I'll bet you a dollar you don't get one intellectually honest answer.
OK, but then you must define "victory". 1. That's not worth a Trillion Frickin' Dollars or 35,000 American casualties. Failure. 2. That's not the reason were were given for going to war. Failure 3. Saddam did not attack us or contribute to 9/11. Failure. 4. Saddam's WMD were proven to be imaginary. Failure. 5. The Iraqis did not welcome us a liberators. Failure. 6. Bush were unprepared for oan uncooperative Iraq. Failure. 7. We had too few troops to maintain security in the occupation. Failure. 8. After five years Bush still has no exit strategy and no one knows what constitutes victory. Failure. 9. Iraq is not and never will become a Jeffersonian democracy. They don't even understand the meaning. Failure. 10. Bush ignored our allies and alienated them. Failure. 11. Bush made us appear arrogrant, overbearing, and foolish. Failure. I can go on and on, but you already know the reasons that Iraq is a failure. The only brilliant success of the whole affair was shock and awe military invasion of Iraq where the Iraqi army was defeated and the capital sacked in 21 days. But the reasons for going were a lie and a failure and the subsequent decision to occupy the damned place is an obvious and total failure. It's crazy. We have a fleet and over 40 military bases in the region already in about a dozen countries, all of which operate in secure areas that are allies and the people aren't trying to kill us and each other. We have no military need whatsoever of an expensive and dangerous base in Iraq. It would cost more to defend it than it could help us. It only provokes Iran anyway and we have better bases to deal with them. Very good point. It also puzzles me why we aren't going after Al Qaida in Pakistan. It hasn't so far and I'd be willing to bet you the best steak in town that history will ravage him. I actually did like him to begin with. But he lost me very early with his mismanagement and foolishness. I just don't understand how anyone can still defend him in the face of his debacle. He's a C student by his own description. I make him a D president.
That would be a T-bone at Doe's Eat Place. Of course, it will take me about 20-30 years to collect. You're on. :lol:
I made a steak dinner bet w/ my Dad a year ago that Hillary wouldn't get the Democratic nomination. I can almost taste it now, but since we ARE dealing with the Clintons, I think I'll just wait until after the convention to collect. :lol:
