Has the President done anything right? [Archive]

JustJon

09-25-2006, 09:38 AM

People are quick to point out everything that goes wrong and blame Bush's administration, but whenever anything good happens, they want to disassociate him from it.  So without bringing in an anti-Bush bias, what do you feel he's done right?

booster11373

09-25-2006, 09:45 AM

The initial invasion of Afghanistan was the right thing in my book. How its been handled after is a different story.I really had to think about this question and I cant even think of anything domestically hes done that I would agree with

Furtherman

09-25-2006, 09:57 AM

As much as I loathe him, I do think the phone tapping SHOULD continue.  I hope our government is listening, because if we could pick up on any chatter about an attack, that is a good pre-emptive measure to preventing one.

Brad_Rush

09-25-2006, 09:58 AM

I was a big fan of when he brought the space program back into the spotlight.  I think that will be a huge part of the future of the US/the world, and the program itself had gotten pretty stale and outdated.

A.J.

09-25-2006, 10:09 AM

This is tough and I voted for the guy.I like the diversity of his Cabinet.  More women and minorities than ever before.As booster said, Afghanistan (even though Tommy Franks' warplan turned out to be a steaming pile).I liked how he has made "non-traditional trips" to Africa, Mongolia and the Republic of Georgia.I was pleased with his pledge of money for Africa to fight AIDS.I was glad to see him grant domestic partner benefits to victims of 9/11...WITHOUT fanfare.

Doctor Manhattan

09-25-2006, 10:27 AM

booster11373 wrote: The initial invasion of Afghanistan was the right thing in my book. How its been handled after is a different story.  That was a good thing, but I think he should have gone in sooner and sent more troops.He HAS to have done other good things, I just can't think of any but I refuse to believe he's 100% bad/wrong/evil. I don't think he hates this country or anything.

phixion

09-25-2006, 11:13 AM

i liked it when he said the jury is still out on evolution cuz thats when i just gave up....

keithy_19

09-25-2006, 11:18 AM

Gas prices have gone down. <img src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/clap.gif" border="0" />Gays can't get married. <img src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/nono.gif" border="0" />                The last one was a joke.

JimiMetal

09-25-2006, 11:22 AM

The only thing he has done right, was to get people to vote him into office. Ooops and re-ellect him, so thats 2

Furtherman

09-25-2006, 11:27 AM

keithy_19 wrote: Gas prices have gone down. Until after the elections in November.  Then they'll go back up, to normal.

OGC

09-25-2006, 11:45 AM

mendyweiss

09-25-2006, 11:51 AM

He fired Bobby Valentine

AKA

09-25-2006, 11:52 AM

So without bringing in an anti-Bush biasSorry, JJ - I just couldn't do it...i see nothing compassionate, endearing, trustworthy, truthful in our leader, and I have honestly looked. I liked his father - I loved Reagan - I'm a big fan of several folks in both parties, but there is not one blessed thing I feel comfident standing behind and agreeing with that he had any hand it. I think he was a tool by neo-cons who wanted to get a foot-hold in the region - they workd on Clinton for years and he didn't budge, and then they went after Jeb, trying the "get Saddam for Daddy" trick - when that didn't work, they moved in on the male cheerleader with Jesus Issues...and I say that as someone who works with clergy!Afghanistan - Anyone in that position would have done the same thing - if Gore had been in there, he might have been challenged to actually be more aggrssive by a Republican Congress (something called "bi-partisan foreign policy") AIDS Funding - Yeah, they were so serious about this that they closed the White House AIDS office.Diversity - Colin Powell's opinion was never valued - Condi, for as much as they like to pretend that she is so trusted and powerful, is currently being babysat by Karen Hughes. Gas Prices - Fuck me, people have no sense of their own history - Gas was $1.70 less than two years ago, so how the holy hell is that "gone down"? Even if gas is $2.40 where you are, that's still one whole dollar more than it was this time in 2003.<img src="http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Bush%26Gas.jpg" border="0" />Furtherman wrote: keithy_19 wrote: Gas prices have gone down. Until after the elections in November.  Then they'll go back up, to normal.<img height="129" src="http://www.giamusic.com/doit/percussion/images/cowbell.gif" width="208" border="0" />Someone knows how the real world works. 

This message was edited by AKA on 9-25-06 @ 3:58 PM

keithy_19

09-25-2006, 12:12 PM

Gas Prices - Fuck me, people have no sense of their own history - Gas was $1.70 less than two years ago, so how the holy hell is that "gone down"? Even if gas is $2.40 where you are, that's still one whole dollar more than it was this time in 2003.And, since I'm paying less than I was (2.29 as ooposed to over 3) I'm happy. At least regarding gas prices.

Dirtybird12

09-25-2006, 12:22 PM

George Bush is responsible for more American deaths than 9-11. More people hate America now than ever before .He used fear to win the election.that being said, he has a cute chuckle and he did produce 2 hot daughters

bobrobot

09-25-2006, 12:34 PM

His comments at press conferences are hysterical, unfortunately it's due to his incredible stupidity!(As far as war dead compared to 911 dead goes, he also took a lotta lives during his tenure as Fuhrer of Texas thru his well known fondness for the death penalty. I hope he gets his own private hell...)

HBox

09-25-2006, 06:18 PM

This administration is great at coming up with metaphors and sound bites. "Axis of Evil" "Framework Agreeements" "Roadmap to Peace" "Cut and Run" "Flip Flop" "Smoking Gun is a Mushroom Cloud" "Fight Them Over There So We Don't Fight Them Here"In fact, I'd say the PR machine currently in the White House is absolutely brilliant considering the product they have to sell. 

This message was edited by HBox on 9-25-06 @ 10:18 PM

FUNKMAN

09-25-2006, 06:26 PM

Fucking Ohio!

AKA

09-26-2006, 05:51 AM

HBOX is so right - the PR/Marketing arm that is guiding these guys really is a thing of hideous beauty. You could see it in the 2000 elections with Gore. Wherever Bush went, he had nicely done, professional looking back drops, and podiums, special fonts and clever phrases to hammer home his latest lies ("W IS FOR WOMEN!") - the kind of shit that sells WalMart to cretins. Meanwhile, Al Gore is seen at a stop with a bumper sticker thumbtacked on a podium! It looked so embarrassing. (Gore still won, mind you, but...well...you know...)All the pieces came together for me when "The Project for the New American Centruy" came to light back in 2003, right as we were going off to war. If you take a look at their PR, website, etc., it bares a striking resemblence to the Karl Rovesque machine. Oh...this old chestnut...

Doctor Manhattan

09-26-2006, 06:01 AM

CircusFreak wrote: he has a cute chuckle and he did produce 2 hot daughters  2 hot daughters? I'd say 1.5 Cute daughters.

FMJeff

09-26-2006, 09:36 AM

The Northwest Hawaiian Islands Marine Refuge. Best thing he ever did for the environment.

saveopieanthony.net

09-26-2006, 09:46 AM

Two words...  New Orleans.

jeffdwright2001

09-26-2006, 09:58 AM

He hasn't tried to buck the whole term limit thing.  Both good and a relief.

Reephdweller

09-26-2006, 07:41 PM

Keith Olberman's comments on Bush in response to the Clinton FOX interview pretty much say it all...<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70wOzCkWN5g">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70wOzCkWN5g</a>

overyoo

09-26-2006, 08:07 PM

Doctor Manhattan wrote: booster11373 wrote: The initial invasion of Afghanistan was the right thing in my book. How its been handled after is a different story.  That was a good thing, but I think he should have gone in sooner and sent more troops.HE COULD OF SENT IN MORE TROOPS IF THE PREVIOUS ADMIDISTRATION HAD NOT CUT THE MILITARY SO DRASTICALLY

This message was edited by overyoo on 9-27-06 @ 12:10 AM

HBox

09-26-2006, 08:29 PM

overyoo wrote: Doctor Manhattan wrote: booster11373 wrote: The initial invasion of Afghanistan was the right thing in my book. How its been handled after is a different story. That was a good thing, but I think he should have gone in sooner and sent more troops.HE COULD OF SENT IN MORE TROOPS IF THE PREVIOUS ADMIDISTRATION HAD NOT CUT THE MILITARY SO DRASTICALLY

This message was edited by overyoo on 9-27-06 @ 12:10 AM  Yeah, it had nothing to do with Rumsfeld and his theory of a "small, light and quick" fighting force and the way he has been trying to transform the military. It's all Clinton's fault, just like this cold I have right now.

led37zep

09-26-2006, 08:32 PM

Afganistan, Tax cuts, and the War on Terrorism.  All good things.

overyoo

09-26-2006, 09:17 PM

HBox wrote:  overyoo wrote: Doctor Manhattan wrote: booster11373 wrote: The initial invasion of Afghanistan was the right thing in my book. How its been handled after is a different story.  That was a good thing, but I think he should have gone in sooner and sent more troops.HE COULD OF SENT IN MORE TROOPS IF THE PREVIOUS ADMIDISTRATION HAD NOT CUT THE MILITARY SO DRASTICALLYThis message was edited by overyoo on 9-27-06 @ 12:10 AM   Yeah, it had nothing to do with Rumsfeld and his theory of a "small, light and quick" fighting force and the way he has been trying to transform the military. It's all Clinton's fault, just like this cold I have right now. bush had 8 months before the towers fell. how many attacks on amecican targets were there during the last 8 years? how many have there been since 9/11? clinton did nothing after the first WTC attacks, he did nothing after all the Embassy attacks, After the uss cole was bombed he would of done nothing Except for the fact that he wanted to get. his name outta the news for having his cock sucked in the oval office so he ordered 1 bombing of a asprin factory. All this Bush bashing about "there were no WMD's when the fact is Clintons Intellegence also said there was, there were speaches before Bush where Clinton said there were WMD's in iraq. From 1996 to 1998,  channels between the Sudan and the Clinton administrationwere opened. officials met in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. Berger and Sudan's president and intelligence chief. President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas. Among those in the networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center. Clinton did nothing, this was AFTER we know he was responsable for MANY attacks on US targets.Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history. but i guess thats bush's fault

PapaBear

09-26-2006, 09:24 PM

After the uss cole was bombed he would of done nothing Except for the fact that he wanted to get. his name outta the news for having his cock sucked in the oval office so he ordered 1 bombing of a asprin factoryThe guided missile attacks that Clinton ordered where in response to the embassy attacks. The attack on the USS Cole came two years later. Thought I'd just clear that up for you.

BLZBUBBA

09-26-2006, 09:25 PM

Something he did right?  Or his people did right?  During the last election they had a very reliable screening process for his appearances.  I think you almost had to be a contributor,  or registered Republican,  or whatever the criteria they had...to obtain tickets.  I think you even had to sign a sheet of paper promising to be quiet.  And people,  locals,  dressed up to almost resemble secret service agents,  threw out anyone that even looked like they may be a problem.  At one appearance a couple got tossed just for having a bumpersticker on their car that read... NO BLOOD FOR OIL.  So in other words...They created a big Bush love in...in a vacuum...and televised it to the nation...via a very friendly media.  That helped contribute to his re-election.  There was nobody at his appearances to "call him" on his BS.  And of course they knew the Democrats wouldn't call him on anything in a coherent manner. Kerry did kick his ass in the debates but how many were watching?  They controlled their crowds and created an illusion.  The illusion?  That everyone loves Bush boy.  Cause he's a real winner.  More important...As Bennington said today...sort of.  He was smart enough to talk stupid to stupid people.And oddly.  They always seem to know what they can get away with regarding the media.  Does anyone remember the press conference prior to the Iraq invasion?  The last time I saw that many softballs lobbed there was an oldies softball tournament at a local park.  What happened to the media?  They really gave Bush a pass for such a long time.  It's like they lined up a bunch of reporters and told them to just go in and suck his ass. And they complied willingly...lovingly.  What leftwing media?  "Oh Mr. President.  How does your faith help you in these decisions?"  What the?  The guys about to order and invasion and that's the best you got? It would be laughable if not so shameful and pathetic.

HBox

09-26-2006, 09:32 PM

overyoo wrote: HBox wrote: overyoo wrote: Doctor Manhattan wrote: booster11373 wrote: The initial invasion of Afghanistan was the right thing in my book. How its been handled after is a different story. That was a good thing, but I think he should have gone in sooner and sent more troops.HE COULD OF SENT IN MORE TROOPS IF THE PREVIOUS ADMIDISTRATION HAD NOT CUT THE MILITARY SO DRASTICALLYThis message was edited by overyoo on 9-27-06 @ 12:10 AM Yeah, it had nothing to do with Rumsfeld and his theory of a "small, light and quick" fighting force and the way he has been trying to transform the military. It's all Clinton's fault, just like this cold I have right now. bush had 8 months before the towers fell. how many attacks on amecican targets were there during the last 8 years? how many have there been since 9/11? clinton did nothing after the first WTC attacks, he did nothing after all the Embassy attacks, After the uss cole was bombed he would of done nothing Except for the fact that he wanted to get. his name outta the news for having his cock sucked in the oval office so he ordered 1 bombing of a asprin factory. All this Bush bashing about "there were no WMD's when the fact is Clintons Intellegence also said there was, there were speaches before Bush where Clinton said there were WMD's in iraq. From 1996 to 1998, channels between the Sudan and the Clinton administrationwere opened. officials met in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. Berger and Sudan's president and intelligence chief. President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas. Among those in the networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center. Clinton did nothing, this was AFTER we know he was responsable for MANY attacks on US targets.Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history. but i guess thats bush's fault  [color=navy][size=2]And how is this relevant to your contention that there are no troops left to send to Iraq and that is supposedly Clinton's fault despite the fact that Rumsfeld has reduced the overall number of overall troops and is a proponent of the theory that a smaller quicker fighting force is more effective?That Sudan story is complete bullshit. And most people believed that there were some WMDs in Iraq, not to the degree that the Bush Administration said but still. And that was based on years of intelligence so yeah, as far as that goes there are a lot of people to blame. But Bush went to war on that information so he takes ultimate responsibility. And oh yeah, they went in there with no plan and subsequently did a piss poor job in keeping the peace. And forgot about Afghanistan.And almost nobody took terrorism seriously enough before 9/11. That's something we all will have to live with.[/color

overyoo

09-26-2006, 09:44 PM

HBox wrote:  overyoo wrote: HBox wrote:  overyoo wrote: Doctor Manhattan wrote: booster11373 wrote: The initial invasion of Afghanistan was the right thing in my book. How its been handled after is a different story.  That was a good thing, but I think he should have gone in sooner and sent more troops.HE COULD OF SENT IN MORE TROOPS IF THE PREVIOUS ADMIDISTRATION HAD NOT CUT THE MILITARY SO DRASTICALLY<div><h4 class="Heading2"><a name="pgfId"></a></h4><a name="pgfId"></a>Between 1992 and 2000, the Clinton Administration cut national defense by more than half a million personnel and $50 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars. The Army alone has lost four active divisions and two Reserve divisions. The number of total active personnel in the Air Force has decreased by nearly 30 percent. In the Navy, the total number of ships has decreased from around 393 ships in the fleet in 1992 to 316 today. Even the Marines have dropped 22,000 personnel.<a name="pgfId"></a>In spite of these drastic force reductions, military missions and operations tempo increased. Because every mission affects far greater numbers of servicemen than those directly involved, most operations other than warfare, such as peacekeeping, have a significant negative impact on readiness.                                                                                                     he pace of deployments has increased 16-fold since the end of the Cold War. Between 1960 and 1991, the Army conducted 10 operations outside of normal training and alliance commitments, but between 1992 and 1998, the Army conducted 26 such operations. Similarly, the Marines conducted 15 contingency operations between 1982 and 1989, and 62 since 1989. During the 1990s, U.S. forces of 20,000 or more troops were engaged in non-warfighting missions in Somalia (1993), Haiti (1994), Bosnia (1996), and Iraq and Kuwait (1998).</div><a name="pgfId"></a><a name="pgfId"></a><div><a name="pgfId"></a><a name="pgfId"></a>According to an August 1999 U.S. General Accounting Office review, more than half of the officers and enlisted personnel surveyed "were dissatisfied and intended to leave the military after their current obligation or term of enlistment was up." Because U.S. servicemen are the military's greatest asset, a ready U.S. military requires bright, well-trained, and highly motivated active and reserve personnel. Unfortunately, due largely to low morale, the services are finding it difficult to recruit and retain servicemen.</div><div><a name="pgfId"></a>Conclusion. Under the Clinton Administration, the U.S military has suffered under a dangerous combination of reduced budgets, diminished forces, and increased missions. The result has been a steep decline in readiness and an overall decline in U.S. military str

HBox

09-26-2006, 09:58 PM

Do you got a link for that so I can see where that came from?<a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2108400/" target="_blank">Assuming that's true, Rumsfeld has been working on transforming the military since he entered office and that transformation doesn't include larger amounts of troops.</a>

overyoo

09-26-2006, 10:05 PM

HBox wrote: 

This message was edited by overyoo on 9-27-06 @ 2:06 AM

TheMojoPin

09-27-2006, 05:15 AM

overyoo wrote: HBox wrote:  overyoo wrote: Doctor Manhattan wrote: [quote]booster11373 wrote: The initial invasion of Afghanistan was the right thing in my book. How its been handled after is a different story.  That was a good thing, but I think he should have gone in sooner and sent more troops.HE COULD OF SENT IN MORE TROOPS IF THE PREVIOUS ADMIDISTRATION HAD NOT CUT THE MILITARY SO DRASTICALLYThis message was edited by overyoo on 9-27-06 @ 12:10 AM   Yeah, it had nothing to do with Rumsfeld and his theory of a "small, light and quick" fighting force and the way he has been trying to transform the military. It's all Clinton's fault, just like this cold I have right now. bush had 8 months before the towers fell. how many attacks on amecican targets were there during the last 8 years? how many have there been since 9/11? clinton did nothing after the first WTC attacks, he did nothing after all the Embassy attacks, After the uss cole was bombed he would of done nothing Except for the fact that he wanted to get. his name outta the news for having his cock sucked in the oval office so he ordered 1 bombing of a asprin factory. All this Bush bashing about "there were no WMD's when the fact is Clintons Intellegence also said there was, there were speaches before Bush where Clinton said there were WMD's in iraq. From 1996 to 1998,  channels between the Sudan and the Clinton administrationwere opened. officials met in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. Berger and Sudan's president and intelligence chief. President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas. Among those in the networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center. Clinton did nothing, this was AFTER we know he was responsable for MANY attacks on US targets.Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history. but i guess thats bush's fault"Many attacks?"  Bin Laden's first attacks against specifically American targets were the embassies in Africa, in 1998.  That's 6 years into the Clinton presidency.  The earliest ANYONE around the world besides the Saudis viewed bin Laden as a legitimate threat that probably should be captured or even killed was approx. 1996, and even then he was known mostly as a terrorist financeer with his interests focused on Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Afghanistan.  In short, in the terrorist world, he was nothing special.American intelligence dropped the ball big time on middle east terrorism in general.  Clinton or Bush, they were gonna fuck up huge.  The ONLY plus you could give Clinton's team is that in the wake of the Cole bombing they did significantly shift focus onto finding bin Laden and taking on Al Queda.  This happened, however, in 2000, with less than a year to go in office.  This

A.J.

09-27-2006, 05:22 AM

TheMojoPin wrote: How did "nothing" happen after the first WTC attack?  A massive investigation and manhunt was launched to find those involved, a number of whom were caught.  And with the embassy bombings, look, I'm gonna play the race card and say that ANY president wouldn't have done shit because, quite frankly, Americans didn't care.  FAR more Africans died than Americans, so it ended up a few notches down on the "give a shit" ladder.  We've got examples of Bush I and Reagan backing off or withdrawing Americans and doing fuck-all in the wake of terrorist attacks and bombings during their administrations, so it's not like this was something new under Clinton.I think the criticism is that the Clinton Administration looked upon this through the criminal/legal optic rather than through a military one.  You are right: nobody knew bin Ladin as this masternind and therefore he wasn't probably a viable target until after the 1996 Khobar bombings in Riyadh.  THEN you started getting the UBL unit set up at CIA and the subsequent, ineffective Tomahawk attacks.

IamFogHat

09-27-2006, 05:28 AM

He has done nothing right and has made me fear for this country's future.  The only thing he's good for is hours of entertainment, e.i. <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/76886/">http://www.slate.com/id/76886/</a>

Keotok

09-27-2006, 05:45 AM

overyoo wrote: HBox wrote: overyoo wrote: HBox wrote: overyoo wrote: Doctor Manhattan wrote: [quote]booster11373 wrote: The initial invasion of Afghanistan was the right thing in my book. How its been handled after is a different story. That was a good thing, but I think he should have gone in sooner and sent more troops.HE COULD OF SENT IN MORE TROOPS IF THE PREVIOUS ADMIDISTRATION HAD NOT CUT THE MILITARY SO DRASTICALLY*><h4 class="Heading2"><a name="pgfId"></a></h4><a name="pgfId"></a>Between 1992 and 2000, the Clinton Administration cut national defense by more than half a million personnel and $50 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars. The Army alone has lost four active divisions and two Reserve divisions. The number of total active personnel in the Air Force has decreased by nearly 30 percent. In the Navy, the total number of ships has decreased from around 393 ships in the fleet in 1992 to 316 today. Even the Marines have dropped 22,000 personnel.<a name="pgfId"></a>In spite of these drastic force reductions, military missions and operations tempo increased. Because every mission affects far greater numbers of servicemen than those directly involved, most operations other than warfare, such as peacekeeping, have a significant negative impact on readiness. he pace of deployments has increased 16-fold since the end of the Cold War. Between 1960 and 1991, the Army conducted 10 operations outside of normal training and alliance commitments, but between 1992 and 1998, the Army conducted 26 such operations. Similarly, the Marines conducted 15 contingency operations between 1982 and 1989, and 62 since 1989. During the 1990s, U.S. forces of 20,000 or more troops were engaged in non-warfighting missions in Somalia (1993), Haiti (1994), Bosnia (1996), and Iraq and Kuwait (1998).<a name="pgfId"></a><a name="pgfId"></a>*><a name="pgfId"></a><a name="pgfId"></a>According to an August 1999 U.S. General Accounting Office review, more than half of the officers and enlisted personnel surveyed "were dissatisfied and intended to leave the military after their current obligation or term of enlistment was up." Because U.S. servicemen are the military's greatest asset, a ready U.S. military requires bright, well-trained, and highly motivated active and reserve personnel. Unfortunately, due largely to low morale, the services are finding it difficult to recruit and retain servicemen.*><a name="pgfId"></a>Conclusion. Under the Clinton Administration, the U.S military has suffered under a dangerous combination of reduced budgets, diminished forces, and increased missions. The result has been a steep decline in readiness and an overall decline in U.S. military strength. Nearly a decade of misdirected policy coupled with a myopic modernization strategy has rendered America's armed forces years away from top form.

This message was edited b

Furtherman

09-27-2006, 06:02 AM

Anyone grasping at the "blame the previous administration" shtick that has recently been slung around needs to lay off FOX News and talk radio.  You're being brainwashed and manipulated.  Focus on the NOW.   What are we doing NOW to fight terrorism?  What are we doing NOW to prevent another attack?That is all that matters.

overyoo

09-27-2006, 10:09 AM

Furtherman wrote: Anyone grasping at the "blame the previous administration" shtick that has recently been slung around needs to lay off FOX News and talk radio.  You're being brainwashed and manipulated.  Focus on the NOW.   What are we doing NOW to fight terrorism?  What are we doing NOW to prevent another attack?That is all that matters.that is what we are doing, what attacks have there been since 9/11?

TheMojoPin

09-27-2006, 10:13 AM

Around the world?  Plenty.  In the US?  Maybe none.  That whole silly anthrax mess is still up in the air.  Are you saying Clinton could have used the same excuse since after the '93 attack nothing else was attacked in the US by islamic extremists?  By this logic, Clinton "succeeded" because nothing else happened under his watch after the 1st WTC attack and attacks overseas apparently don't count.  So if another attack happens on US soil after Bush is out of office, it's not his fault?  You can't have it both ways.

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 9-27-06 @ 2:15 PM

booster11373

09-27-2006, 10:14 AM

Furtherman wrote: Anyone grasping at the "blame the previous administration" shtick that has recently been slung around needs to lay off FOX News and talk radio.  You're being brainwashed and manipulated.  Focus on the NOW.   What are we doing NOW to fight terrorism?  What are we doing NOW to prevent another attack?That is all that matters.This is only going to get worse the closer we get to the election.

Furtherman

09-27-2006, 10:14 AM

None in the U.S. But the threat of another attack grows stronger every month that passes while we're in Iraq. Clinton fan or not, he was right when he said we didn't finish the job in Afghanastan.

A.J.

09-27-2006, 10:23 AM

TheMojoPin wrote: Around the world?  Plenty.  In the US?  Maybe none.  That whole silly anthrax mess is still up in the air.  Are you saying Clinton could have used the same excuse since after the '93 attack nothing else was attacked in the US by islamic extremists?  By this logic, Clinton "succeeded" because nothing else happened under his watch after the 1st WTC attack and attacks overseas apparently don't count.  So if another attack happens on US soil after Bush is out of office, it's not his fault?  You can't have it both ways. This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 9-27-06 @ 2:15 PM Actually you can.  The attacks overseas during Clinton's term were all against U.S. targets: Khobar towers, U.S. embassies in Africa, USS Cole in Yemen.The London and Madrid bombings were against local targets.

TheMojoPin

09-27-2006, 10:28 AM

A.J. wrote: TheMojoPin wrote: Around the world?  Plenty.  In the US?  Maybe none.  That whole silly anthrax mess is still up in the air.  Are you saying Clinton could have used the same excuse since after the '93 attack nothing else was attacked in the US by islamic extremists?  By this logic, Clinton "succeeded" because nothing else happened under his watch after the 1st WTC attack and attacks overseas apparently don't count.  So if another attack happens on US soil after Bush is out of office, it's not his fault?  You can't have it both ways. This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 9-27-06 @ 2:15 PM Actually you can.  The attacks overseas during Clinton's term were all against U.S. targets: Khobar towers, U.S. embassies in Africa, USS Cole in Yemen.The London and Madrid bombings were against local targets.I think his point was no attacks had occured in the US.  Besides, one could argue that there aren't more attacks against US interests overseas because anyone who wants to be a terrorist has a free shooting range for doing just that in Iraq.  Bush has lessened the threat of attack elsewhere by making a giant target out of the US military and the Iraqi people.

A.J.

09-27-2006, 10:35 AM

A new policy of containment, perhaps?

UnknownPD

09-27-2006, 10:46 AM

I think he is not given enough credit for procreating two very doable daughters

TheMojoPin

09-27-2006, 05:58 PM

A.J. wrote: A new policy of containment, perhaps? It's so retarded it's actually brilliant.

NortonRules

09-27-2006, 06:25 PM

Bush's Social Security plan was really really great.  Unfortunately, the Democrats played politics instead of doing the right thing.  The media killed it, too.  They printed virtually all false information about it.  Very briefly, here it was:- YOU get to decide what to do with a small part of YOUR pay, instead of giving it to the irresponsible government to waste.- YOU can pass that money down to loved ones when you die, instead of the irresponsible government keeping it.  (This would benefit black people that are reported to die early and many times don't get the SS money they worked for - this way their money doesn't go back to the government).- YOU can decide if you want to participate in it or NOT.  No one is forced into it.  At all.  If YOU don't like any risk, then YOU don't have to participate.  Sit back and watch everyone else get rich while you waste that same amount of money on lottery tickets each month.- NO seniors were going to lose their SS money, as advertised by the media and liberals.  - Taking this tiny portion of your income 4% (you already put 12.4% into SS now) and investing it would be A LOT of money by the time you retire.  (calculator link is below)  Most working people should have a 401K or IRA in addition to this to begin with.  Plus, you still have most of your regular SS income anyway (if the government didn't blow it in the mean time)It's sad that this plan did not happen.  The democrats lost my trust on this one.  I can still see Hilary yelling and screaming and cheering when Bush acknowledged that his plan wouldn't be approved.  She played politics and screwed us over to do it.  And then cheered and shook her fists in celebration.  You might cry in sadness or anger if you go to this link and do the calculations and read the FACTS.  At this point I realized fully that the Democrats don't have our best interests in mind either.  <a href="http://www.daveramsey.com/etc/social_security/index.cfm?FuseAction=dspSocialSecurity&strMode=calculate">http://www.daveramsey.com/etc/social_security/index.cfm?FuseAction=dspSocialSecurity&strMode=cal culate</a>

NortonRules

09-27-2006, 06:26 PM

Sorry.  I guess that wasn't so brief. 

LimeJohnny

09-27-2006, 06:41 PM

overyoo wrote: HE COULD OF SENT IN MORE TROOPS IF THE PREVIOUS ADMIDISTRATION HAD NOT CUT THE MILITARY SO DRASTICALLYue largely to low morale, the services are finding it difficult to recruit and retain servicemen.*><a name="pgfId"></a>Conclusion. Under the Clinton Administration, the U.S military has suffered under a dangerous combination of reduced budgets, diminished forces, and increased missions. The result has been a steep decline in readiness and an overall decline in U.S. military strength. Nearly a decade of misdirected policy coupled with a myopic modernization strategy has rendered America's armed forces years away from top form.There is no possible way that a person who writes the words, "could of" as opposed to "could have" would be able to write that conclusion.  So let me say thanks for the cut and paste job on your conclusion, but we all can research military readiness on the internet.  So for those of you that would like to read Overyoo's "opinions" and interpretation of the impact of the reduction of our military force, please refer to Jack Spencer's article on the Heritage Foundation website.  Click <a href="http://www.heritage.org/Research/MissileDefense/BG1394es.cfm" target="_blank">here </a>for more of Overyoo's opinions.

Grendel_Kahn

09-27-2006, 07:14 PM

I smelled a cut and paste job here.  Thanks to you for doing the research. Like
Mojo said................all they want is to have it both ways. 
You can blame the previous administration when it pertains to
Clinton.  But you cannot when reffering to Bush 1.   
Truth be told, most of the problems we face in the region can be laid
firmly on the doorstep of Mr. Ronald Regan. Plus
what really drives me nuts is the revisionist history.  Since 1995
Congress and The Senate have been under Republican rule.  A
President cannot ( I repeat for you Red Staters) CAN NOT make
unilateral decisions without an official declaration of war, 
which we haven't had since 1941. It's really that simple.   There
have been no attacks since 9/11?  That's crazy talk.  There
were no attacks on American soi 1993- 2000.  Good Job Bill! 
Also good job in actually CATCHING and JAILING the people responsible
for it.    And for the record, the attacks in Madrid and
London had EVERYTHING to do with the "war on Terror"  Both England
and Austrailia are partners in the "Coalition of the Willing) such as
it is.  The site that was  bombed in Madrid was known for
being a hotbed of Austrailian college students.     So
please.  Deal with the here and now.  We are not handling ANY
of this with an ounce of grace or coheasion.  All we have been
capable is a blunt finger pointed in the chest.  We need to cut
the head off and the rest will die.  Follow the money and see
where it all leads. But we know where that is right?

overyoo

09-27-2006, 07:51 PM

LimeJohnny wrote: overyoo wrote: HE COULD OF SENT IN MORE TROOPS IF THE PREVIOUS ADMIDISTRATION HAD NOT CUT THE MILITARY SO DRASTICALLYue largely to low morale, the services are finding it difficult to recruit and retain servicemen.*> <a name="pgfId"></a>Conclusion. Under the Clinton Administration, the U.S military has suffered under a dangerous combination of reduced budgets, diminished forces, and increased missions. The result has been a steep decline in readiness and an overall decline in U.S. military strength. Nearly a decade of misdirected policy coupled with a myopic modernization strategy has rendered America's armed forces years away from top form.There is no possible way that a person who writes the words, "could of" as opposed to "could have" would be able to write that conclusion.  So let me say thanks for the cut and paste job on your conclusion, but we all can research military readiness on the internet.  So for those of you that would like to read Overyoo's "opinions" and interpretation of the impact of the reduction of our military force, please refer to Jack Spencer's article on the Heritage Foundation website.  Click <a href="http://www.heritage.org/Research/MissileDefense/BG1394es.cfm" target="_blank">here </a>for more of Overyoo's opinions.  ooooh ya busted the dumb republican, with the bad grammer GOOD JOB! as for the "cut and paste job" i thought it was obvious since HBOx and i were just trading facts about what happened. he asked me for the link after i posted it, i thought i posted but looking back when i edited it i erased it. But GOOD JOB LIMEJOHNNY! was there any grammer issuse inthis post? please let me know.

tele7

09-27-2006, 08:03 PM

Me thinks it's spelled Grammar.

overyoo

09-27-2006, 08:06 PM

telecaster7 wrote: Me thinks it's spelled Grammar.  holy shit i'm an dumbass...lol

This message was edited by overyoo on 9-28-06 @ 12:06 AM

A.J.

09-28-2006, 03:02 AM

Grendel_Kahn wrote: Truth be told, most of the problems we face in the region can be laid firmly on the doorstep of Mr. Ronald Regan.  How is Reagan to blame? Grendel_Kahn wrote: There have been no attacks since 9/11?  That's crazy talk.  There were no attacks on American soi 1993- 2000.  Good Job Bill!  Also good job in actually CATCHING and JAILING the people responsible for it.    And for the record, the attacks in Madrid and London had EVERYTHING to do with the "war on Terror"  Both England and Austrailia are partners in the "Coalition of the Willing) such as it is.  The site that was  bombed in Madrid was known for being a hotbed of Austrailian college students.  Well, technically the attacks against the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania WERE an attack on U.S. soil.  Embassies are sovereign territory.  And while the attacks in Madrid and London were related to the war on terror/war in Iraq, they were NOT attacks against the U.S. or its citizens.Grendel_Kahn wrote: We need to cut the head off and the rest will die.  Follow the money and see where it all leads.But we know where that is right?  Where?

Furtherman

09-28-2006, 05:44 AM

overyoo wrote: ooooh ya busted the dumb republican, with the bad grammer GOOD JOB! as for the "cut and paste job" i thought it was obvious since HBOx and i were just trading facts about what happened. he asked me for the link after i posted it, i thought i posted but looking back when i edited it i erased it. But GOOD JOB LIMEJOHNNY! was there any grammer issuse inthis post? please let me know.Issues bolded.  Just letting you know.

Yerdaddy

09-28-2006, 05:55 AM

Conclusion. Under the Clinton Administration, the U.S military has suffered under a dangerous combination of reduced budgets, diminished forces, and increased missions. The result has been a steep decline in readiness and an overall decline in U.S. military strength. Nearly a decade of misdirected policy coupled with a myopic modernization strategy has rendered America's armed forces years away from top form.I used to attend congressional Armed Service Committee hearings for an organization I worked for. On several occasions I heard the same conversations between democrat and republican congressmen and the military leaders. Actually, they weren't so much consversations as appeals. The members would explain to the military leadership that they are aware of the dire need for the military to close bases, cut forces and restructure the entire military system to comply with the change from a Cold War posture to the new needs of the nation's defense. The members would express to the military that this necessary change was politically problematic for any member of congress with military bases in thier states or districts. They simply could not go to their constituents and say that they had to support massive job cuts for them. Therefore, what they wanted the military to do was to cut the bases anyway. One member used Young Frankenstien as a comparison: "No matter what you hear from me, do not open this door!" (I think that was Russ Feingold.)This was in 1999/2000 - the last two years of the Clinton presidency. That's when republicans were still begging the military to shrink itself down. I've also heard ideological republicans try to get military leadership to admit that the Clinton administration committed a number of liberal blunders with military policy - from Somalia to budget cuts. I've never seen military leadership verify these myths. They usually get bored and try to get back to the point in these hearings. I think your source is full of shit. He's trying to create analysis to confirm conservative talking points. In Washington this is good business. But in the real world it's just plain old bullshit.

Jujubees2

09-28-2006, 05:57 AM

NortonRules wrote: Bush's Social Security plan was really really great.  Unfortunately, the Democrats played politics instead of doing the right thing.  The media killed it, too.  They printed virtually all false information about it.  Very briefly, here it was:- YOU get to decide what to do with a small part of YOUR pay, instead of giving it to the irresponsible government to waste.- YOU can pass that money down to loved ones when you die, instead of the irresponsible government keeping it.  (This would benefit black people that are reported to die early and many times don't get the SS money they worked for - this way their money doesn't go back to the government).- YOU can decide if you want to participate in it or NOT.  No one is forced into it.  At all.  If YOU don't like any risk, then YOU don't have to participate.  Sit back and watch everyone else get rich while you waste that same amount of money on lottery tickets each month.- NO seniors were going to lose their SS money, as advertised by the media and liberals.  - Taking this tiny portion of your income 4% (you already put 12.4% into SS now) and investing it would be A LOT of money by the time you retire.  (calculator link is below)  Most working people should have a 401K or IRA in addition to this to begin with.  Plus, you still have most of your regular SS income anyway (if the government didn't blow it in the mean time)It's sad that this plan did not happen.  The democrats lost my trust on this one.  I can still see Hilary yelling and screaming and cheering when Bush acknowledged that his plan wouldn't be approved.  She played politics and screwed us over to do it.  And then cheered and shook her fists in celebration.  You might cry in sadness or anger if you go to this link and do the calculations and read the FACTS.  At this point I realized fully that the Democrats don't have our best interests in mind either.  <a href="http://www.daveramsey.com/etc/social_security/index.cfm?FuseAction=dspSocialSecurity&strMode=calculate">http://www.daveramsey.com/etc/social_security/index.cfm?FuseAction=dspSocialSecurity&strMode=cal culate</a>First of all, last time I checked, the Republicans control both Houses.  So if GW wanted to push through the social security bill he could have. Second, the biggest problem was that people who elect to invest in the "new" system would be taking dollars away from the "old" social security system, thus causing it to go broke even sooner (since the current administration has been raiding the social security fund).  The easier thing would have been to raise the limit on how much of your salary would go to social security.

johnniewalker

10-02-2006, 02:34 PM

With all the craziness going on lately with Woodward's book coming out,  now Condi said she would have resigned, its hard to remember if Bush was ever liked.  Woodward came out with a book on bush in 2002  which was favorable to Bush and I was reading some reviews from late 2002 and there were some funny quotes.  "Considering Woodward's ever present liberal bias, this book paints an
incredibly favorable portrait of our President. Thank God Almighty for
giving us President Bush and not President Gore in this time of
national peril!""All those jokes about the President being a "moron" and not up to the job are long gone." Probably would want those back.