Is there anyone left who still supports Bush?

Very constructive and intuitive.....

 

Since several planned terrorist attacks post 9/11 did not occur on US soil; is Bush to blame because other attacks happened elsewhere or does he get credit because the US attacks were foiled? Or because nothing bad happened in the US there is nothing to give credit or blame for?

If Bush is to be blamed for the way information is gathered at Guantanamo Bay, would he have been held blameless if an attack on US soil occurred because less effort was extended to gain that information?

There are parties with nuclear weapons not tied to the ABM treaty that are developing delivery systems and potentially purchasing the knowledge to accelerate this process. At what point do we take steps to address TMDs that non-signers may have? Should we stop development of directed energy weapons until we have a direct threat that justifies the need? These weapons violate the spirit of the ABM treaty that was originally conceived in a much different world than today (yes, I know there have been updates).

This would be fun if these issues weren't so serious..........

 

You only blame Bush and nobody else. When will that stop? And you love cutting my quotes up to suit your purposes. Taking one sentence out of context is not an answer to a position. You failed to answer any of my points with facts, though I provided plenty to support my statements. If you think this is still a debate, keep blowing the hot air. Nobody else is buying your mantra. It's no mystery that you are not going to be convinced by fact so I am done. I do respect your opinion, but I simply don't agree with it and have provided ample evidence to support my beliefs. I'm sure you crave the last word, so have at it.

 

Well it's still a little fun, isn't it? Aren't we lucky we don't work at the UN? We don't ever have to take each other seriously!:hihi: :hihi:

 

Is Bush to blame because other attacks happened elsewhere? No. He neither perpetrated the attack, nor was responsible for the surveillance failure that allowed them. There was the "shoe bomber" on the flight to the US, who was foiled because he couldn't light his shoe, and he was jumped by the passengers, so not all foiled attacks are credited to Bush either.

Some things we've done have helped, such as greater scrutiny of visa requests, tracking visa recipients after they've entered the country, domestic and intl. surveillance, tracking money flows internationally to identify suspected AQ members (for further surveillance).

No, Bush would not be held blameless. There are many other legal strategies (see above) that can and have proved useful to prevent attacks. My concern with Guatanamo and Abughraib is with the justification it will offer to future enemies when it comes to the treatment our US service people will be subjected to, using our own letters of justification.

That's a good question. The easy part of the answer is it is one of only two alternatives: before they use them, or after they use them (if in fact they intend to use them at all. They may want them just as a deterrent). The concept of mutually assured destruction has worked for 60 years to deter the use of nuclear weapons by anyone. Is it any less likely to work in the future? If you use your nuke, we'll destroy your country. If its a sovereign nation, we know where to find them.

If we decide to preemptively clean them out, how much would that cost, is it necessary, how much would our commerce be harmed if we behaved that way, how many power vacuums would be created, how would those vacuums be filled, would it solve the problem in the long run, or just in the short run while bankrupting the country? I don't have a short concise well thought out answer, but hopefully the govt. is working on this. I think very good work was done after the Cuban missile crisis in 1963 to define the steps to take prior to a missile launch, which we realized right after the crisis that we did not have a good plan or protocol in place.

 

First of all the thing I find interesting about this thread.
Someone who probably wasn't alive during the Carter years says Bush is the worst president ever.
I remember the Carter years well and we are STILL much better off today than the Carter years.
I won't go into this at this point because the thread is about Bush.

There are probably for the first time more things I don't like about George Bush than things I actually like.
When he was first elected I was skeptical because I figured he was elected because of his name more so than any other reason.

Things I like about his presidency.
1) Supreme Court appointees, about time we get some conservatives.
2) Response to 9/11.
3) Determination no matter right or wrong.
4 )Tax cuts for the rich (lol)
5) The way he treats the iceholes from the press who have agendas.

Things I don't like.
1) The China Incident
2) Didn't stand behind 9/11 rescuers and their health problems.
3) Didn't listen to Colin Powell and others.
4) Isn't a conservative, wasteful spending by Repub and Dems.
No economic conservatives in sight the last 8 years or so.
5) Didn't stay with SS reform, goes back to #3 on my other list.
6) Didn't secure the USA\ Border security
7) Didn't support border patrol doing their jobs.
8) Prescription Drug Plan
9) Didn't go into Pakistan, the opportunity was there after Afghanistan and this is probably why the Taliban is re-surfacing in Afghanistan.

 

I was alive and of voting age when Carter ran for re-election. I am a conservative and was a big Reagan supporter, however in my opinion Bush will indeed go down as a worse president that Carter. Carter was a buffoon, but at least he was an honest one with some integrity. I can't come close to saying the same about Bush and wish someone would have given us a better candidate to vote for. I am a conservative, Bush is not.

I believe in protecting America from being invaded by foreign countries, Bush does not. I am against large government, Bush is not. I am against corporate corruption, Bush is not. I am against our economy being run by foreign countries and companies, Bush is not. I find it hard to believe there has ever been a worse or more corrupt president. As a conservative I can't say I have ever been alive to see a president with more different values and convictions than I have. I think Micheal Moore and Rosie O'Donnell should be shot, but I also think that Bush should be tarred and feathered and run out of town. JMHO