2,688 days without an attack

[Generic]

Marc Thiessen, a White House speechwriter, have newspaper columns out Thursday implicitly rebutting Obama's harrowing speech to the Bush administration (http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/...h.4-413984.php).
Thiessen, in The Washington Post, focused his argument on the fact that terrorists never struck American soil again after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, calling that Bush's singular legacy. "If Obama weakens any of the defenses Bush put in place and terrorists strike our country again, Americans will hold Obama responsible - and the Democratic Party could find itself unelectable for a generation," he wrote.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...012103215.html

Karl Rove went on to define Bush's legacy as the two of them see it. Bush, he wrote, was ultimately right about Iraq and right about his tactics in the war on terrorism. He cut taxes "for every American who pays taxes," appointed conservative judges, began an unprecedented campaign to fight AIDS in Africa, expanded Medicare to cover prescription drugs and introduced the No Child Left Behind education accountability program.
his column:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1232...gn2008_mostpop

[eljefe]

Originally posted by Generic
Marc Thiessen, a White House speechwriter, have newspaper columns out Thursday implicitly rebutting Obama's harrowing speech to the Bush administration (http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/...h.4-413984.php).
Thiessen, in The Washington Post, focused his argument on the fact that terrorists never struck American soil again after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, calling that Bush's singular legacy. "If Obama weakens any of the defenses Bush put in place and terrorists strike our country again, Americans will hold Obama responsible - and the Democratic Party could find itself unelectable for a generation," he wrote.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...012103215.html

Karl Rove went on to define Bush's legacy as the two of them see it. Bush, he wrote, was ultimately right about Iraq and right about his tactics in the war on terrorism. He cut taxes "for every American who pays taxes," appointed conservative judges, began an unprecedented campaign to fight AIDS in Africa, expanded Medicare to cover prescription drugs and introduced the No Child Left Behind education accountability program.
his column:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1232...gn2008_mostpop

Ummmm 2688 days without an attack on American soil does not justify or credit Bush with anything. They neglect to mention how many days the US had gone without an attack on American soil prior to that.

[Xtrema]

How about Iraq war that weakened USA and allow Iran and NK to have nukes.

And how about Pakistan who already has nukes but has no way to maintain a government to secure them?

All Bush's fault.

Went after the wrong people.

[Generic]

Originally posted by Xtrema
How about Iraq war that weakened USA and allow Iran and NK to have nukes.

And how about Pakistan who already has nukes but has no way to maintain a government to secure them?

All Bush's fault.

Went after the wrong people.

Iran and NK don't have nukes.
they have the ability to make them.
and yes, he should have gone after Iran.

[eljefe]

Originally posted by Generic


Iran and NK don't have nukes.
they have the ability to make them.
and yes, he should have gone after Iran.

North Korea tested their first nuclear weapon in October of 06

[Xtrema]

Either way, saying 2688 days with attack is like saying I have not cut myself in 10 years, pointless.

[Generic]

Originally posted by Xtrema
Either way, saying 2688 days with attack is like saying I have not cut myself in 10 years, pointless.

incorrect. Bush and his administration faced several terrorist attacks, including a foiled plane bombing (similar to 9/11) in 2003. We will never know for some time, how many times the US faced attack during these past 8 years.

[method]

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.

[Antonito]

I have yet to hear how Obama plans to weaken national security. I hear plans to withdraw from the middle east (eventually...maybe), but those have nothing to do with homeland security.

[Generic]

Originally posted by Antonito
I have yet to hear how Obama plans to weaken national security. I hear plans to withdraw from the middle east (eventually...maybe), but those have nothing to do with homeland security.

closure of Guatamano Bay, refusal to use harsh interrogation methods, less military spending, etc

[Supa Dexta]

Jeeze, 2600 days gone, what have I been doing with myself.

[Graham_A_M]

^Word. It seems like yesterday I was in grade 12 when that happened.
Jesus Time flies doesn't it?

[Supa Dexta]

I was drunk somewheres in ontario..

[Antonito]

Originally posted by Generic


closure of Guatamano Bay, refusal to use harsh interrogation methods, less military spending, etc

No I said what is he doing to make America less safe. Iraq isn't actually part of America.

edit: actually, that only refers to the military spending.

G-Bay is simply a lightning rod for attention. They are not going to just throw these guys out into the streets once Guantanamo is closed.

Oh no, don't take away serious torture, then the CIA might have to actually do its job instead of cutting corners and going straight to water boarding.

[DRKM]

Originally posted by Generic


closure of Guatamano Bay, refusal to use harsh interrogation methods, less military spending, etc

Bitch, are you fucked?

[mx73someday]

I don't think it can be said that Bush's legacy was to prevent terrorism when he was directly responsible for so much of it. Besides aren't US bases considered American soil?

[James]

Originally posted by Generic
If Obama weakens any of the defenses Bush put in place and terrorists strike our country again, Americans will hold Obama responsible - and the Democratic Party could find itself unelectable for a generation," he wrote.
aign2008_mostpop[/url]

This is probably very true, and its simply because a large % of Americans are well, simply put, fucked in the head.

I truly hope nothing happens, but the future does not look great for the U.S....I Hope Obama has a very large rabbit in a hat.

[black13]

Originally posted by Generic


closure of Guatamano Bay, refusal to use harsh interrogation methods, less military spending, etc

Oh just STFU. Bush's approval rating is the lowest ever for a reason. Most Americans don't like him now and yet your defending him for his idiocy?
Torturing prisoners and invading countries with no concrete intelligence is why the US is in such a clusterfuck to begin with. The Afghan invasion was justified and more than enough to weaken Bin Laden and the Taliban. Invading Iraq was not necessary and just turned more of the middle east into a war zone. Now a huge mess to clean up after. And your saying they should invade Iran instead? Yea lets just bomb every country without evidence and still fund Isreal to bomb the shit out of every country it wants.

There won't be another attack on US or any major soil regardless. A 9/11 attack was a once in a lifetime thing, Taliban is pretty much abolished and Bin Laden hasn't even been seen in 6 months. So who else is there? Hamas makes home made rockets with scraps and Iran sure ain't stupid enough to think it won't get invaded if it does any attack on US.
And Obama hasn't said he's going to just cut security down at all. Most American's want the troops out of Iraq anyway.

[gatorade]

north korea has had nukes for a while...
"refusal to use harsh interrogation methods", in other words torture?

[James]

wow, i just read the article originally and didnt even noticed the OP's real stance on the situation, now that i re-read the thread.. what a moron