Originally Posted By Mr X <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/03/bush.iraq/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITI CS/09/03/bush.iraq/index.html</a> Okay, what exactly is the point here? I understand the political "score" he's going for, but didn't some enemy forces recently shoot rockets off at a senatorial plane? Not to mention Cheney and his trip to Afghanistan (noone seems to remember or care about the 20 or so dead in that bombing attempt...collateral damage, I guess?). So, is it really that important for Bush to go to Iraq yet again? It certainly seems dangerous, given that the whole thing was a big "secret" (again).
Originally Posted By RoadTrip The dude is from Texas. That says it all. If you don't believe me, just ask Labuda!
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By ecdc Actually, this is one of the few things Bush has done that I can respect. Political stunt? Probably. But it's also what a leader does - it shows he's engaged, at least to the Iraqis. Symbolism matters. Sure, it's way too little, too late. But he's President for 16 more months - I'll take what I can get.
Originally Posted By Mr X I'd take it to mean that most people from Texas are stupid, but I'd need confirmation from resident Texans to confirm... SuperDry? BUT, he's NOT "from Texas" though. Hardly. He's from the family Bush...a deeply rich, deeply rooted, deeply connected family that gets whatever the want (including presidental appointments, if that suits them).
Originally Posted By Mr X I'd take it to mean that most people from Texas are stupid, but I'd need confirmation from resident Texans to confirm... SuperDry? BUT, he's NOT "from Texas" though. Hardly. He's from the family Bush...a deeply rich, deeply rooted, deeply connected family that gets whatever they want (including presidental appointments, if that suits them).
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By gadzuux It's my guess that bush is trying to keep the focus on iraq during the upcoming 9/11 anniversary. He doesn't want us thinking too much about osama bin laden. Just as a reminder, we're right where we were on 9/12/01 when it comes to apprehending the people responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Bush supporters love to crow about how bush has 'kept us safe from terror'. How do they figure that? The people who attacked us are scott free, well organized, well funded, and undoubted planning some new horrific event. What's he doing about that? Going to iraq.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Bush supporters love to crow about how bush has 'kept us safe from terror'. How do they figure that? < and US mainland attacks since then ? My guess is that is the scorecard. So if they captured Bin Laden , yet we had 2-3 more major attacks- would that be a better scorecard ?
Originally Posted By vbdad55 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I really don't care who takes credit for that - it is a very good thing
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Let's not forget that it took bin Laden 10 years from the time he turned against us (for putting soldiers in Saudi Arabia) to pull off 9/11. It might take him a little longer this time with the increased consciousness we have now - though with our still-porous security at things like chemical plants and ports, perhaps not. But if it takes him only AS long to plan another spectacular event... well, it isn't 2011 yet. And that's just bin Laden. Mubarek famously said that by invading Iraq we might have created "a thousand bin Ladens" - in other words, wealthy and now radicalized Saudis or Yeminis or Jordanians whose names we've never heard of... yet. The fact that we invaded Iraq makes me, sitting here in the largest target city, feel less safe, not more.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 a fact of life in the new millenium is that no one is safe anywhere in the world - and likely will not be for the foreseeable future. No matter what we lock down ( and I admit the docks should be tighter ) there is no way you can protect the size borders we have - will another attack occur - likely. Is it harder for them to pull off now than before 9/11 - yes. But the relative ease at which 9/11 was pulled off belongs to more than George Bush - I hate to tell ya --you yourself said how long the planning took - that goes back into another administration, and the risk of attack goes back further than that. the question was, what do they gauge success on- and I still say no further attacks would be that. No one has blown a hole in one of our destroyers -- no on has blown up any embassies in Africa - were those the current admins fault also ? I am not going to defend the current admin for a whole lot of things - but somewhere it's got to stop that they are responsible for everything from lunar eclipses - to the fall of the Roman Empire - it's just silly
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<<The dude is from Texas. That says it all.>>>> What is that supposed to mean?>> 1) I have issues with Texas. Not necessarily with Texans, but with Texas. 2) More than anything it was a joke. If you've read my posts you would know a certain percentage of them are in jest.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>And that's just bin Laden. Mubarek famously said that by invading Iraq we might have created "a thousand bin Ladens" - in other words, wealthy and now radicalized Saudis or Yeminis or Jordanians whose names we've never heard of... yet. The fact that we invaded Iraq makes me, sitting here in the largest target city, feel less safe, not more.<< Very well said, as usual. >>I am not going to defend the current admin for a whole lot of things - but somewhere it's got to stop that they are responsible for everything from lunar eclipses - to the fall of the Roman Empire - it's just silly<< I hear this from time to time. What have people blamed Bush for that is so absurd and ridiculous? Dabob's post above was absolutely correct. By invading Iraq, we are less safe. I agree with you, vbdad, that we live in a world where anyone can be attacked. We can't insure, in a free society, that we won't be attacked. But we can certainly lessen our chances, and Bush has done very little to lessen them, and with Iraq, has done quite a bit to increase them. Holding Bush accountable for things like that is not the same as blaming him for everything.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <will another attack occur - likely. Is it harder for them to pull off now than before 9/11 - yes. But the relative ease at which 9/11 was pulled off belongs to more than George Bush - I hate to tell ya --you yourself said how long the planning took - that goes back into another administration, and the risk of attack goes back further than that.> And I never said different. My point was that no major attacks on the US since 9/11 is good, but we shouldn't be complacent, or think that that trend necessarily continues. Particularly since our own intelligence estimates have said a). that al Qaeda has reconstituted and is operating pretty freely again in Pakistan and b). our invasion has radicalized thousands of additional muslims. ecdc's last two paragraphs are right on the money.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> the question was, what do they gauge success on- and I still say no further attacks would be that. << The people most directly responsible for 9/11 are still free and extremely dangerous - so no, I wouldn't gauge this as a "success". In fact it's a glaring failure. Certainly bush has to assume responsibility for that given his choices to divert our resources to iraq - and the audacity to do so under the guise of it being a valid and reasonable response to 9/11. You better believe that bush will be blamed for whatever comes next. And supporters will say that it's unfair.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By RoadTrip ^^^ It isn't Jiko's fault. They put something in the water down there. That is why I have issues with Texas, but not with Texans. ;-)
