Grade the Prez: Heres your chance

[top gun]

Carter used the power of the FED to basically force banks to lend to people who had no business buying a house. This practice was continued by all parties up until it blew up in everyone's face.

Now, yes, this is not the sole cause of our problems, just one example of the lunacy we enact as policy.

But Rob... isn't it true that both Parties at the time overwhelmingly supported trying to create ownership by lower income people with one goal being to help stabilize deteriorating communities, and that Republicans actually highly supported the extra business this would create? Yes...

And isn't it also true that only a mere 12% of all this bad paper was in any slight way even connected to the mortgage crisis meaning 88% was caused by people not on the low income side? Yes...

Sometimes we try things and sometimes they work, sometimes they work for a while until something else happens, sometimes they just don't work.

But I think it's pretty clear the idea was well intended by both sides. The Democrats wanted to create a sense of pride and ownership by lower income people in their communities (owners being less transient and more invested) and the Republicans thought it would help business.

No one agrees more than I that the standards in retrospect should have been held somewhat higher and there also should have been more regulation on the banks to help safeguard us from other problems like corporate greed... so in retrospect I basically agree with what you're saying. But I still think everyone on both sides on this one was well intended. .

 

[BigRob]

But Rob... isn't it true that both Parties at the time overwhelmingly supported trying to create ownership by lower income people with one goal being to help stabilize deteriorating communities, and that Republicans actually highly supported the extra business this would create? Yes...

It does not matter who supported it, the policy was bad.

And isn't it also true that only a mere 12% of all this bad paper was in any slight way even connected to the mortgage crisis meaning 88% was caused by people not on the low income side? Yes...

The paper by itself is not a major deal, but the ideas and precedence this action created are more linked to the current problems in my opinion.

Sometimes we try things and sometimes they work, sometimes they work for a while until something else happens, sometimes they just don't work.

Yes.

But I think it's pretty clear the idea was well intended by both sides. The Democrats wanted to create a sense of pride and ownership by lower income people in their communities (owners being less transient and more invested) and the Republicans thought it would help business.

No one agrees more than I that the standards in retrospect should have been held somewhat higher and there also should have been more regulation on the banks to help safeguard us from other problems like corporate greed... so in retrospect I basically agree with what you're saying. But I still think everyone on both sides on this one was well intended.

.

Well intended does not sell bad policy for me. Both sides share the blame I agree and have stated that, however, in current form, it seems that many in Congress are not interested in trying to change to something that works, but rather pouring more money into something that obviously did not.

 

[Andy]

There have been quite a few, namely the Anthrax attacks, several abortion clinic incidents and quite a few otherwise local minor bombings.

You might have a point with the Anthrax attacks. Other than that, I have not seen evidence of Clinic bombings. I've seen some stopped, but that's not what I meant. I meant terrorist attacks by Al Qaeda that happened routinely prior to Bush.

Do you really want to go there? There are thousands of dead Americans and tens of thousands seriously wounded from terrorists attacks on American targets. Going into detail here would exceed my bandwidth limit for the month.

I'm not talking about a war zone.

Did he cause the Soviets to invade Afghanistan? Did he cause the overthrow of the Shah? Did he cause the oil embargo?

There was no oil embargo. The oil embargo happened under Nixon. And even under Nixon, the oil embargo did absolutely nothing. The entire problem was with price caps. Price caps caused gasoline shortages because sellers couldn't pass on the cost of purchase to the consumers. The result was massive lines, and long waits.

Nixon at least had the fact it hadn't been tried before. But once tried, and failed miserably, what is Carters excuse? After seeing it fail completely under Nixon, his brilliant idea is to try it all over again? Then shockingly had the exact same result, and what's his plan? Rationing of Gasoline?

Carter was a complete idiot.

No he didn't cause the Soviets to invade Afghanistan. He sure didn't oppose it though.

No he didn't directly cause the shaw of Iran to be overthrown. What he did was, while knowing that the Soviets and Chi-coms were supporting the opposition to our national ally, he refused to support the Shaw of Iran, which made his overthrowing inevitable. Then stupidly didn't think to evacuate our Embassy when he knew, or should have known, that the Shaw's end was at hand.

Again, Carter was completely incompetent in every way.

Ill set aside the Clinton claims here for a minute, the fact of the matter is that Bush, despite coming from and claiming to be a conservative did nothing to curb spending, and increased it greatly.

He can claim anything he wants. Al Gore claims he's an environmentalist against evil oil companies. That doesn't change the fact he's got millions in Oxidental Petrol, that he arranged the sale of oil land to, as VP.

Bush is not nearly as much as conservative as he's tried to say. In the same way McCain barely has a single issue anywhere that he could be considered conservative on.

But as to fiscal responsibility:
Bush veto'd two bills what would have spent billions on Stem Cell research.

Bush veto'd The Water Resources Dev Act which would have spent $25 to $50 billion on pork spending special interest project, plus an additional amount for promises to local communities for unknown amounts.

The above act, was passed by a veto override with 266 democrats voting for it. Only 2.... voted against it.

Bush veto'd H.R. 3043, which to pay for the department of Labor and a bunch of other things, was so bloated that it would cost 12 times as much as the entire department of Homeland Security.

Even though the override attempt failed, all 226 democrats voted for the bill.

Bush also veto'd a failed government health system that would have spent an additional $60 Billion on Mass. MassHealth system.

Finely, Bush veto'd the massive pork Farm Bill twice. That didn't stop it from being passed by an override, of which only 16 democrats from both the House and Senate, voted against the massive special interest give away.

HUH? France supported us in Iraq? Saudi Arabia? Turkey? Germany? Canada? They all said NO

France hasn't supported us on anything anywhere for ages. They are not a close ally. That said, yes they were against the war. Of course their high profit trade ties to Saddam had nothing to do with it...

Canada did not say "no". They opted not to help only because they wanted U.N. approval. That didn't stop them from stating they clearly believed Iraq has WMDs. Canada has: helped train Iraqi police, oversight of the elections, and it's NORAD and exchange forces, did run missions with US military units during the war.

So that leaves Turkey, Germany, and Saudi Arabia. Alright. Want to list the countries that not only supported but contributed troops to operations in Iraq?

United Kingdom, South Korea, Australia, Poland, Romania, Denmark, El Salvador, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Latvia, Albania, Czech Republic, Mongolia, Lithuania, Armenia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Estonia, Macedonia, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Fiji, Hungary, Nicaragua, Spain, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Philippines, Thailand, New Zealand, Tonga, Portugal, Singapore, Norway, Ukraine, The Netherlands, Japan, Italy, Slovakia.

Ok, so three countries, plus one with a conflict of interest, against all these that were for it.

All of which turned out to be quite incorrect. But Bush was so hellbent on war in Iraq, there was nothing that could change Bush's mind.

That's an idiotic statement. What the heck does "hellbent... nothing could change his mind" mean? It wasn't until 2 years after the invasion was completely that we gave up the search for WMDs. Further, that was only one of the stated reasons for going. Finely, what exactly would you expect him to do?

So if you were in charge, you'd what? Oops! No WMDs! Ok, let's put Saddam back in power, put the tyrannical Ba-aths party back in power, return the people cheering for freedom, back into rape rooms and oppression, and just quickly walk away like nothing happened? If not, then what is your brilliant plan? Stop being stupid. You can't complain about what someone else did, when you have not the slightest clue what could have been done better.

I am not by any means a Clinton apologist, but there was a diplomatic solution there without nukes available. When in a year into his Presidency, when Bush mentioned NKorea in the axis of evil, it put them on the direct path to exploding a nuke in 2006. If N. Korea is Clintons fault it is just as much every Presidents fault since 1953. Except none of them had Commie Korea explode a nuke on thier watch, and do SQUAT about it.
If we invaded Iraq for being a dictatorship, having WMDs, killing his own people and neighbors, and defying UN resolutiuons, then certainly we should have invaded Korea...except they dont have oil or another strategic resource available.

You seem to be missing the whole point. It's not necessarily "Clinton's Fault"... it's the ideologies fault. Democrats and leftists, tend to have this idea that "talking" helps. Like if we just talk, just sit and blabber about, like some annoying wind up toy, that will somehow improve things. Bush, and others like myself, believe that action sometimes is the only way. That yacking at people doesn't help.

In 1994, Clinton went on the yacking plan, to work with North Korea to not build nukes. The same as he did with Saddam, constantly trying to talk him into disarming and letting the UN inspectors to verify destruction of WMDs. Well of course the North Koreans agreed to everything no problem.

But now we know they did nothing of the sort. They signed the irrelevant paper, and went about their business building nukes. They purchased high end enrichment equipment, and started building bombs. You think 2006 was the result of one speech in 2002? Tell me you are not so ignorant to believe that only 4 years is required to go from nothing to fully functional nuclear bomb?

The whole reason Bush put Iran into his speech was explicitly because they were already building a nuclear bomb, and violating their agreement not to. We already know that the equipment needed to build the nuke, was purchased in 1997 to 2000.

Not sure why I talk about Saudi Arabia? Maybe it is because according to Bush, the greatest threat to humanity is AL-Q which contains a lot of Saudi Arabians, 15 of which assisted in killing +3,000 American civilians. Saudi Arabia also said NO to using thier assistance and airspace in the 2003 invasion.

Great. What would you have suggested we do? Invade Saudi Arabia? I thought you were against "rushing to war" and for "pursing peace"? If you are not for that, then SHUT UP! If you are, then what the heck do you think Bush should have done?

You are real good at complaining about other peoples choices, but have zero suggestions yourself.

What other reasons? Would you invade all the other countries in the world that meet the criteria provided?

Absolutely.

Pile on Carter all you want, he is nothing but a strawman for the GOP. Carter inherited a nearly impossible situation of the Nixon debacle and Ford place holding, and only had 4 years before he was ousted.

Hey, I pile on whoever deserves it. Carter earned the rank of worst president in the past 60 years at least.

You criticism of Carter and his not learning historic failures can just as easily be applied to Bush. I am not a big fan of Carter and his policies, but what gets my respect and favor between the two, which were both probably incompetent for the job, is that both had access to the greatest military power in the world, one showed restraint and pursued peace. While the other choose conflict and war at every opportunity.

Every opportunity? We have reason to believe Syria has some of Saddam's weapons. We have reason to go to Iran. We have reason to even go to Pakistan too. Heck we have reason to go to a number of places. The reason we haven't is to try and work out diplomatic solutions.

Clinton's inaction for 8 years led to 9/11. Haven't YOU learned anything from history?

 

[Andy]

Nice picture, I bet some poor Iraqi's would let three children pose like that if it meant that they got a warm meal. One close-up photo like that proves nothing, it could have been taken on the South lawn of the Whitehouse.

Iraqi kids going to school. The US servicemen donated kits for school, and the frisbees that say "Friendship" in Arabic and English. Spirit of America is a non-profit organization. Donate today

Iraq may sell its oil on the commodities market, but where does the money go?

Same place it went to before the war, and since 1966. The Iraq National Oil Company.

Out of curiousity, why don't the oil companies fund the bailout of the Big Three auto companies? They were the major beneficiaries of the gas-guzzler vehicles made by the Big 3.

Same reason any other company doesn't bailout another. It's not only, not their job too, but it would also be a violation of their corporate charter, and the trust of their investors, such as myself. Exxon is a great company to have stock in, specifically because they invest company money into what they do best, namely producing oil.

By the way, consumer automotive products only are a fraction of oil company profits. They make a much larger percentage of their income from petro-chemical, and other products and fuels, like home heating oil, plastics, aviation, watercraft, diesel and commercial fuels for trains and heavy machinery.

In fact, the last estimation I heard, which was about 2004 or 2005, if all autos because instantly 10% more fuel efficient over night, that would only reduce the entire worlds oil consumption by less than 1%. In other words, barely anything worth even noting.

Only in the conspiracy theory world do oil companies have huge massive ties to big three automakers, and only if you ignore foreign autos also making large vehicles.

 

[The Scotsman]

Good posts Andy!

 

[Chip]

So far GWB's GPA is .9375 -- that's a D-.

I wonder why so many here at this forum are giving him such poor grades.

Is it because that's what he truly deserves?!

 

[Andy]

So far GWB's GPA is .9375 -- that's a D-.

I wonder why so many here at this forum are giving him such poor grades.

Is it because that's what he truly deserves?!

Well, first half the people hate Bush no matter what. It wouldn't matter what policy he has, they simply hate him because they hate anyone that isn't one of them. For example, McCain was 99.9% democrat, and 0.1% republican, and half of that was simply his republican name tag. Yet the left HATED him completely, even though he was practically a member of the left fan club.

Another example is Obama. Obama has turned out to support nearly everything Bush has in recent months. He supports tax cuts, war, more spending, amnesty, and on and on. Yet the left greatly supports Obama, but not Bush, and they hate Bush for the very policies that Obama is promoting. In other words, the left hates Bush completely with or without reason.

Conservatives on the other hand, we support ideals and pricipals. We have things we believe in. So our 'love' of a candidate is based on our convictions, not on the simple hate of someone that's "not one of us".

As such, when Bush has been passing policies and bills we disagree with, we don't give him great kudos simply because he's not Obama. We have given him a grade based on our support of his policies. Not because we are bitter self-center angry leftists.

 

[top gun]

BigRob;80918]It does not matter who supported it, the policy was bad.

Bad is bad. Both thought it would help and it did for a while... but in retrospect it could not hold up long term.

The paper by itself is not a major deal, but the ideas and precedence this action created are more linked to the current problems in my opinion.

It didn't help I'll grant ya that.

But when we look at all that failed and all the different sectors we had problems waiting everywhere. Look at the Bennie Madoff thing. We had problems and needed regulation and enforcement were just not there... or anywhere really.

Yes.

Agreement is good.

Well intended does not sell bad policy for me. Both sides share the blame I agree and have stated that, however, in current form, it seems that many in Congress are not interested in trying to change to something that works, but rather pouring more money into something that obviously did not.

This is the thing. Both sides from Bush people to Clinton people and almost everyone in between are basically saying the same thing... so I tend to think there's some good reason for that.

I'm for both a jobs program for real needed projects that have to be done anyway... that's long term help. And for an even quicker bump I support tax cuts to the middle and lower class workers and probably even letting all the Bush tax cuts Bush already gave to the rich just expire and not roll them back immediately as originally planned.

I think everyones going to be feeling at least a little better about our economy at this time next year. Here's to HOPE!

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Prior to the socialism bailout thing, he would have gotten an A.

But because he's supporting these socialistic policies, a C in an order.

so with bush pushing a poor and not funded no child left behind, the Iraq war that was poorly planed, failed intel, and have cost near 4000 american troops, and countless Iraq's lives, Afganistan actuly getting worse not better, Bin Ladin and al quida by some measurse stronger then before even, Bin ladin not dead ( at least confirmed) Katrina, the National Debt , Spending at new hights, and whats called one of hte worst economic situations since the Depression, the fact that Sept 11 did happen on his watch and he had made no actions in regard to terrorism untill that point...it was only the bail outs that dropped him from a A?

CLinton had a good econ for 8 years for the most part, no major wars, and the debt was not skyrocketing, reformed welfare. I guess cutting taxes must be the only real important issue or else mabe clinton got like a A+? ( not that I liked him or voted for him) I voted Perot and Nader

 

[pocketfullofshells]

You might have a point with the Anthrax attacks. Other than that, I have not seen evidence of Clinic bombings. I've seen some stopped, but that's not what I meant. I meant terrorist attacks by Al Qaeda that happened routinely prior to Bush.

Really , Terror attacks on the US where Routinely before Bush but have stopped now? Really , al Qaeda was making routine attacks before Bush, but those have ended now? Please enlighten on this, because I recall one attack on US Soil pre Sept 11 known to be al Qaeda. the first WTC bombing. If you are counting attacks on US and Western interest before that time, well then have you failed to notice the amount of attacks on US and Western interest since Sept 11 just because they where not in the US?

Or maybe you don't don't count attacks that on not on something like a US warship ( like the missile attack from Yemen) or attacks on US Embassies but ignore attacks on places like Hotels and other civilian facilities known to have many American and westerners there as he main targets.

So what type of attacks are you trying to say Bush has stopped that where so common before? I am not sure what you mean here as I dont see any type of attack on US interest that have been reduced.

 

[Andy]

so with bush pushing a poor and not funded no child left behind, the Iraq war that was poorly planed, failed intel, and have cost near 4000 american troops, and countless Iraq's lives, Afganistan actuly getting worse not better, Bin Ladin and al quida by some measurse stronger then before even, Bin ladin not dead ( at least confirmed) Katrina, the National Debt , Spending at new hights, and whats called one of hte worst economic situations since the Depression, the fact that Sept 11 did happen on his watch and he had made no actions in regard to terrorism untill that point...it was only the bail outs that dropped him from a A?

CLinton had a good econ for 8 years for the most part, no major wars, and the debt was not skyrocketing, reformed welfare. I guess cutting taxes must be the only real important issue or else mabe clinton got like a A+? ( not that I liked him or voted for him) I voted Perot and Nader

This is one of the reasons why government is able to screw with us so much, and get away with it. You attribute things to people who happen to be in office when they happen, and fail to attribute them to who was actually responsible for them, or who's policies actually contributed to the results.

This is key. For example, if I'm in office and pass bad legislation that causes massive problems, but those problems do not appear until after I leave, then I get praised for the bad legislation and the great economy, and the next person after me, gets blamed for the negative effects of legislation on a bad economy. Despite the fact he didn't actually cause the problem.

ECONOMY
For example, it's been detailed over and over the specifics that caused the problems economically. One can be traced back to a knee-jerk reaction to Enron. Did Bush cause that? No. So we can't blame him for something he didn't cause. Even the whole Enron scandal itself has ties to Clinton, not Bush.

The other can be traced back to a push to provide sub-prime lending for the purpose of boosting minority home ownership. That change happened under Clinton, not Bush.

Nevertheless, the left which doesn't seem interested in find the actual cause of problems, would rather simply blame whoever is in charge. That to me, is a willfully ignorant position.

INTELLIGENCE INFO
Another example is the Intel on Iraq. If the intel was bad, then why didn't Clinton push for better intel in the 5 years prior to Bush taking office? How can you even blame Bush for bad intel, when Canada, Germany, Israel, UK, and a number of others said the exact same thing? Was it Bush's fault that every nation on the planet was saying the same? Did "BushCo" fly all over the world prior to taking office, forcing all the other nations to also have faulty information?

Maybe you don't know this, but under Clinton, the multiple directors of the CIA, all had social missions, instead of protecting national security. James Woolsey, appointed by Clinton in 1993, set about to promote women, break the "glass ceiling", and become more diverse. Woolsey installed hiring goals that hired women and minorities as priority over being more qualified. Then in 1995, the incompetent Woolsey was replaced by John Deutch. John Deutch set about to remake the whole department in the name of diversity. Plus, he installed requirements for recruiting spies and informants that made it nearly impossible to hire anyone. Finely, Deutch was horribly careless with classified national security information, having highly classified documents and information on multiple un-classified laptops that anyone was allowed to use. Even though Deutch was dismissed and under investigation, he and his assistant stalled investigators till Clintons last year, and was then pardoned. But even then, George Tenet his replacement, still continued the push started by Deutch for hispanic and asian-pacific minorities.

Now where in that list do you see the priority of "info on Iraq" or "possible terrorist attacks"? It's not there. And this list doesn't even include the massive budget cuts to the CIA. Yet you want to blame Bush for bad intel, and a war?


See this is the difference between lazy people and people who think. I don't just assume correlation means causation. The fact that Y event happened, at the same time that X person was in the white house, means that X caused Y.

I want to know what specifically cause event Y, and if X person had something to do with the cause of event Y.

If Bush caused the economy to crash, show me the bill or legislation he passed that caused it. I can show you the legislation Clinton passed that caused it.

If Bush caused 9/11, then show me the actions that caused it. I can show you the bad policies, the limited intel, and the priorities that Clinton pushed that caused it.

If Bush caused bad intel, the show me the legislation he passed that caused it. I can show you the bad legislation to hire hispanics and asians, instead of arabic speaking middle easterners, that caused it.

Your grade is based on uniformed assumptions. Mine is based on factual data.

 

[Andy]

Really , Terror attacks on the US where Routinely before Bush but have stopped now? Really , al Qaeda was making routine attacks before Bush, but those have ended now? Please enlighten on this, because I recall one attack on US Soil pre Sept 11 known to be al Qaeda. the first WTC bombing. If you are counting attacks on US and Western interest before that time, well then have you failed to notice the amount of attacks on US and Western interest since Sept 11 just because they where not in the US?

Or maybe you don't don't count attacks that on not on something like a US warship ( like the missile attack from Yemen) or attacks on US Embassies but ignore attacks on places like Hotels and other civilian facilities known to have many American and westerners there as he main targets.

So what type of attacks are you trying to say Bush has stopped that where so common before? I am not sure what you mean here as I dont see any type of attack on US interest that have been reduced.

You are correct. I was wrong. There have been some attacks in Yemen and Saudi Arabia, that I was not aware of.

That said, I'd still support a war against terrorism, than the prior administrations positions of simply prosecuting the individuals involved, while the rest of the entire network remains unchecked and uncontested.

It's like organized crime. You might find the loan hired killer, but until you take the boss down, he'll just find someone else to do the work.

I for one, am completely convinced that if Clinton had taken on Al Qaeda during his administration, and waged war on terrorism, 9/11 would never have happened.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

This is one of the reasons why government is able to screw with us so much, and get away with it. You attribute things to people who happen to be in office when they happen, and fail to attribute them to who was actually responsible for them, or who's policies actually contributed to the results.

This is key. For example, if I'm in office and pass bad legislation that causes massive problems, but those problems do not appear until after I leave, then I get praised for the bad legislation and the great economy, and the next person after me, gets blamed for the negative effects of legislation on a bad economy. Despite the fact he didn't actually cause the problem.

ECONOMY
For example, it's been detailed over and over the specifics that caused the problems economically. One can be traced back to a knee-jerk reaction to Enron. Did Bush cause that? No. So we can't blame him for something he didn't cause. Even the whole Enron scandal itself has ties to Clinton, not Bush.

The other can be traced back to a push to provide sub-prime lending for the purpose of boosting minority home ownership. That change happened under Clinton, not Bush.

Nevertheless, the left which doesn't seem interested in find the actual cause of problems, would rather simply blame whoever is in charge. That to me, is a willfully ignorant position.

INTELLIGENCE INFO
Another example is the Intel on Iraq. If the intel was bad, then why didn't Clinton push for better intel in the 5 years prior to Bush taking office? How can you even blame Bush for bad intel, when Canada, Germany, Israel, UK, and a number of others said the exact same thing? Was it Bush's fault that every nation on the planet was saying the same? Did "BushCo" fly all over the world prior to taking office, forcing all the other nations to also have faulty information?

Maybe you don't know this, but under Clinton, the multiple directors of the CIA, all had social missions, instead of protecting national security. James Woolsey, appointed by Clinton in 1993, set about to promote women, break the "glass ceiling", and become more diverse. Woolsey installed hiring goals that hired women and minorities as priority over being more qualified. Then in 1995, the incompetent Woolsey was replaced by John Deutch. John Deutch set about to remake the whole department in the name of diversity. Plus, he installed requirements for recruiting spies and informants that made it nearly impossible to hire anyone. Finely, Deutch was horribly careless with classified national security information, having highly classified documents and information on multiple un-classified laptops that anyone was allowed to use. Even though Deutch was dismissed and under investigation, he and his assistant stalled investigators till Clintons last year, and was then pardoned. But even then, George Tenet his replacement, still continued the push started by Deutch for hispanic and asian-pacific minorities.

Now where in that list do you see the priority of "info on Iraq" or "possible terrorist attacks"? It's not there. And this list doesn't even include the massive budget cuts to the CIA. Yet you want to blame Bush for bad intel, and a war?


See this is the difference between lazy people and people who think. I don't just assume correlation means causation. The fact that Y event happened, at the same time that X person was in the white house, means that X caused Y.

I want to know what specifically cause event Y, and if X person had something to do with the cause of event Y.

If Bush caused the economy to crash, show me the bill or legislation he passed that caused it. I can show you the legislation Clinton passed that caused it.

If Bush caused 9/11, then show me the actions that caused it. I can show you the bad policies, the limited intel, and the priorities that Clinton pushed that caused it.

If Bush caused bad intel, the show me the legislation he passed that caused it. I can show you the bad legislation to hire hispanics and asians, instead of arabic speaking middle easterners, that caused it.

Your grade is based on uniformed assumptions. Mine is based on factual data.

While you ignore all events that happened for 8 years and say good job.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

You are correct. I was wrong. There have been some attacks in Yemen and Saudi Arabia, that I was not aware of.

That said, I'd still support a war against terrorism, than the prior administrations positions of simply prosecuting the individuals involved, while the rest of the entire network remains unchecked and uncontested.

It's like organized crime. You might find the loan hired killer, but until you take the boss down, he'll just find someone else to do the work.

I for one, am completely convinced that if Clinton had taken on Al Qaeda during his administration, and waged war on terrorism, 9/11 would never have happened.

then ask yourself why when he did the reblicans went after him for it. He attacked Bin Ladin, and they cried wag the dog, as if he was not a real threat. Clinton and his teams talked to Bush about the need to go after him and how he was the biggest security risk to the US, Bush did nothing. The Afghanistan orig plans where based in part on plans Clinton had drawn up, but of course had he tried to do them, we know what republican reaction would have been...talk about Monica more and try to discredit the idea as more wag the dog.

 

[BigRob]

While you ignore all events that happened for 8 years and say good job.

The point most people make when saying there have been no new terrorist attacks is to point out that there have been none here in the United States. By going after the terrorists they are unable to carry out major attacks and are reduced to running supply boats into ships, or planting an IED. Hardly anything the scale of 9/11.