Feel safer with Bush?

[spurster]

Do I feel safer with Bush in office? No, because

9/11 happened on his watch.

OBL escaped from his Afghanistan hideout.

International law (Geneva Conventions) was cir vented to abuse/torture prisoners of war and to hold them indefinitely with no rights.

National law was cir vented to hold Americans indefinitely with no rights.

There are many more terrorists in Iraq now than pre-invasion.

Dangerous explosives in Iraq were allowed to be taken by anybody.

Our military is overextended.

Iran and North Korea continue with their nuclear programs.

Israeli settlements were accepted for the first time.

Nothing has been done to reduce our dependence on Middle East oil.

The assault weapons ban was allowed to expire.

By aggressive unilateralism, the US is becoming a pariah to the world instead of its leader.

[Clandestino]

Do I feel safer with Bush in office? No, because

9/11 happened on his watch.

it was being planned for years under clinton... clinton had osame offered to him, but he said no...

OBL escaped from his Afghanistan hideout.

you have no idea where he is or was... no one does otherwise he'd be dead...he is hiding like a ing rat...

International law (Geneva Conventions) was cir vented to abuse/torture prisoners of war and to hold them indefinitely with no rights.

National law was cir vented to hold Americans indefinitely with no rights.

i hate how all you aclu people want the terrorists to be given truffles and fine wine and housed in 5-star hotels....

There are many more terrorists in Iraq now than pre-invasion.

better to have them all there fighting our trained soldiers than to disperse them all over the world and attack innocent civilians...

Dangerous explosives in Iraq were allowed to be taken by anybody.

you don't know that for sure...i love how you give what the IAEA says more weight than what our own soldiers say..

Nothing has been done to reduce our dependence on Middle East oil.

okay, stop driving your car, turn off all your electricity...you are part of the problem...do you want the government to regulate everything? we are communists... the government should have as little intervention in our lives as possible.

The assault weapons ban was allowed to expire.

so you only want the criminals to have such weapons...bc they will still have them...the law abiding citizens are the only ones who wouldn't have them...

By aggressive unilateralism, the US is becoming a pariah to the world instead of its leader.

why do you want to appease the world? and people said the same thing about the u.s. after wwII...

[Hook Dem]

"Do I feel safer with Bush in office? No, because

9/11 happened on his watch." ..................Don't forget about the hurricanes that hit Florida also. ..................."There are many more terrorists in Iraq now than pre-invasion." ...................................I thought you guys said there weren't any terrorist in Iraq prior to the invasion! .................................................. "International law (Geneva Conventions) was cir vented to abuse/torture prisoners of war and to hold them indefinitely with no rights." ...............................................Merely your opinion.

[ClintSquint]

I'M responsible for protecting my family and neither Bush or Kerry is going to change that.

[Hook Dem]

I'M responsible for protecting my family and neither Bush or Kerry is going to change that.

Whats your "caliber" Clint?

[Marcus Bryant]

Yeah let's go back to the 'safety' of the Clinton years when the US repeatedly suffered attacks at home and abroad and the US did not mount an effective response due in part to a fear of being seen as acting in an aggressive unilateralist manner.

The Kerry approach has been tried already. It failed.

[Useruser666]

Whats your "caliber" Clint?

That's a rather personal question!

The assault weapons ban did not prevent people from obtaining assault weapons. Even under the ban, with the proper liscensing you could still buy and own assault style weapons. That law was worthless.

[Hook Dem]

That's a rather personal question!

The assault weapons ban did not prevent people from obtaining assault weapons. Even under the ban, with the proper liscensing you could still buy and own assault style weapons. That law was worthless.

Just wanted to see if Clint was still polluting our "clean air" with his 357 Magnum.

[ClintSquint]

Well, I felt safe under the Clinton administration.
What you all don't get is that if 9/11 didn't happen, Bush wouldn't be so tough on terrorism.
His lackluster attention the terrorism prior to 9/11 is never discussed.
Many have allowed the terrorists to scare them but not me.
It always goes back to blaming Clinton for everything.
This is why I've been quite the past month or so.
This petty blaming gets on my freakin' nerves!!
I'm tired of it.

[Useruser666]

Well, I felt safe under the Clinton administration.
What you all don't get is that if 9/11 didn't happen, Bush wouldn't be so tough on terrorism.
His lackluster attention the terrorism prior to 9/11 is never discussed.
Many have allowed the terrorists to scare them but not me.
It always goes back to blaming Clinton for everything.
This is why I've been quite the past month or so.
This petty blaming gets on my freakin' nerves!!
I'm tired of it.

I don't blame Clinton for 9/11 or the economy. I don't blame Bush for those either. I agree that Bush wouldn't be as tough on terrorism as he is now if it weren't for 9-11. But do you think any president would? I know I wouldn't think about it as much if it weren't for 9/11.

[Marcus Bryant]

Well, I felt safe under the Clinton administration.

Obviously that 'safety' was illusory.

[mysterious_elf26]

I personally feel safer with neither. Both of them have been caught staring their own country in the eye lying. Both of their agendas for office have been found either false, unable to accomplish, or it will actually make things worst. I'm voting Kerry because even though it's a gamble, I think we have a better chance making things better with a fresh-start. All I know is that whoever becomes president. We're in for another long four years.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

What I don't like is Cheney continuing his "scare" tactics.
He went to Hawaii and told them if they didn't want another Pearl Harbor they better vote bush.
Wow is he bad and imagine the idiots who believe they are safer with them in office. They forget, 911 HAPPENED ON THEIR WATCH.
Bottom line: 9/11 happened on JUNIOR'S WATCH... AFTER he received a memo TELLING HIM Bin Laden would strike us with hijacked planes....

[Hook Dem]

What I don't like is Cheney continuing his "scare" tactics.
He went to Hawaii and told them if they didn't want another Pearl Harbor they better vote bush.
Wow is he bad and imagine the idiots who believe they are safer with them in office. They forget, 911 HAPPENED ON THEIR WATCH.
Bottom line: 9/11 happened on JUNIOR'S WATCH... AFTER he received a memo TELLING HIM Bin Laden would strike us with hijacked planes....

Spoken like a true Marxist Johnny Marxetti.

[Clandestino]

What I don't like is Cheney continuing his "scare" tactics.
He went to Hawaii and told them if they didn't want another Pearl Harbor they better vote bush.
Wow is he bad and imagine the idiots who believe they are safer with them in office. They forget, 911 HAPPENED ON THEIR WATCH.
Bottom line: 9/11 happened on JUNIOR'S WATCH... AFTER he received a memo TELLING HIM Bin Laden would strike us with hijacked planes....

i don't ever remember hearing about a memo that was so specific...

but clinton did say, osama is a threat... if he was such a ing threat why didn't the former admin do anything?

[bigzak25]

Do I feel safer with Bush in office? No, because.....

I'm a terrorist?

[Useruser666]

What I don't like is Cheney continuing his "scare" tactics.
He went to Hawaii and told them if they didn't want another Pearl Harbor they better vote bush.
Wow is he bad and imagine the idiots who believe they are safer with them in office. They forget, 911 HAPPENED ON THEIR WATCH.
Bottom line: 9/11 happened on JUNIOR'S WATCH... AFTER he received a memo TELLING HIM Bin Laden would strike us with hijacked planes....

Looks like a lot of people have problems with this statement. I believe that no matter how far you stretch things out, Bush was NOT at fault for 9/11. You are not accurately placing blame there. What lead up to the attacks on 9/11 are a series of very complex situations. I don't believe any of them are a result of GB's actions or anything else that could be attributed to him. The triggers of 9/11 were long ago put into motion before GB took office. The way he has handled those events can be heavily critized by some and praised by others. But you can not deny the FACT(mouse you listening? ) The US has not suffered another attack on her soil since 9/11.

[boutons]

Clinton was not running the country, the CIA, the FBI, NSC, from 1/20 until 9/11.

Who was?

There was a veritable firestorm of flashing red lights and waving red flags from CIA and FBI in the 3 or 4 months before 9/11, all effectively ignored by the Repugs as they were too busy counting their $$$ from the biggest, most unfair tax cut in US history that was their first and only priority in taking office.

I lay 9/11 directly in the hands of shrub/ head. It occurred well into their watch, with plenty of time to undo whatever security they have blamed Clinton for.

shrub/ head had their chance to defend us then, they failed

shrub/ head had their chance to make USA/word safer after 9/11, but instead ed up and instead invaded Iraq, and failed criminally.

shrub/ head should have bombed Iran and Libya as payback for US Embassy hostages, US marines/Lebanon, Lockerbie bombing, Berlin nightclub bombing, USS Cole, etc, etc. As the Jews have understood for decades, the Muslims/Arabs only understand force.

The USA/world is not safer. It's more dangerous and unguarded directly as a result of shrub/ head.

[NameDropper]

Rumor has it that there WILL be another attack on US soil and no matter who is president..it WILL happen.
So I think much of the "We haven't had an attack since 9/11" is simply a coincidence that Bush supporters point out while over looking the FACT that 9/11 happened on his watch. Those are the facts and not a rumor.

[Useruser666]

Rumor has it that there WILL be another attack on US soil and no matter who is president..it WILL happen.
So I think much of the "We haven't had an attack since 9/11" is simply a coincidence that Bush supporters point out while over looking the FACT that 9/11 happened on his watch. Those are the facts and not a rumor.

Yeah it's a coincidence that while Bush is president we are not attacked again!

Boutons, I am really having a hard time understanding your viewpoint when you just go off and rant. Name calling and random spewing of untruths is not a way to convince people here of your arguement. I don't understand how you can claim Bush is responsible for 9/11. Why is he responsible? He had just started his term at the time. You act as though 9/11 wouldn't have happened if some one else were in office at that time. That is BS and I'm calling it! None of us realized what a threat these terrorist posed to the US until after 9/11. Remember when the World trade center was bombed in '93? What was done then! Nothing! That was 8 years before 9/11! Now look at the difference of what steps have been taken after 9/11 and what steps were taken after the '93 bombing. Can you see the difference? If you can't you need to wake up. You are more than welcome to stick to your views no matter how far off they are, but right now you're spelling cat with a "k".

[JoeChalupa]

I put my safety in God's hands and nobody elses.

[boutons]

"He had just started his term at the time"

Remember how the Repugs spun their taking of office, the transition would be all "business-like", "meetings start/stop on time" (I take this spin as shrub being so "content-free" all he could do was insist on "form", and his first secy of commerce confirmed that after he left the cabinet), "hitting the ground running", etc, ad nauseam?

Well, 9/11 was almost 1 ing year into shrub/ head term as commander-in-chief and primary guarantor of national security. 9/11 is shrub/ head's turd and their turd alone.

WTC/93 was on Clinton's watch, and THAT was the wake up call.

Remember when Clinton shot a cruise into Afghanistan to get OBL? I remember thinking "WTF is all that about?"

The outgoing Dem's warned shrub/ head about OBL, but since nothing of any value could possible come from the Dems, it was ignored. The Repugs had bigger fish to fry, like tax cuts for the rich.

I'm sure the complete story of the White House, CIA/FBI/NSC actions in the months before 9/11 has not been told.

That little 9/11 tidbit about the FBI agent who wrote a report that was extremely prescient about these foreigners wanting to learn how to fly but not learn how to take off and land? They want you to believe that was the ONLY insight anywhere in all of the FBI/CIA/NSC.

The spin we've heard, and that obviously we Americans of good will want to believe, is that it was impossible to have prevented 9/11. shrub/ head cia/fbi/nsc absolutlely insist that "possible to prevent" be unthinkable, beyond our imaginations. ie, shrub/ head absolutely want us to believe that the 9/11 was so exceptional so that we give shrub/ head a pass on it.

I remember sitting watching CNN, before the first tower fell, thinking "somebody has really ed up bad to allow this to happen" CIA/FBI/NSC have $50B or so, year in and year out, to prevent this . What the were they doing? Reminisicing about the good old days with the Russians?

But this general denying of any responsiblity is typical shrub. "we weren't responsible for (the failures before) 9/11 (it was Clinton), but we're responsible for the wonderful non-9/11's that haven't happened since. The want it both ways, I'm not giving it to them.

shrub/ head have the unlimited brazeness and mendacity to convict KERRY as guilty for a future, imagined 9/11, while shrub/ head are 100% innocent of the past, real 9/11? GMAFB

ie, my point is that if they want to stick Kerry as guility of some future 9/11, I stick shrub/ head with the guilt of the past 9/11.

[Spurminator]

Considering that the training and most of the planning happened before Bush took office, about the only thing they could have done to prevent 9/11 was to ban box cutters from commercial aircraft.

Look, blame is as stupid and partisan. Everybody's got an idea of what should have been done and who was at fault. What America must ask itself is which candidate will keep us safe for the next 4 years, not which candidate might have been able to prevent 9/11.

[spurster]

it [9/11] was being planned for years under clinton... clinton had osame offered to him, but he said no...

If I agree Clinton takes a large part of the blame. I think Bush does, too.

you have no idea where he [OBL] is or was... no one does otherwise he'd be dead...he is hiding like a ing rat...

The evidence was very strong that he was at Tora Bora at the end of the Afghan war. The US could have done a lot more at that point, but hoped their Afghan allies would do the dirty work.

i hate how all you aclu people want the terrorists to be given truffles and fine wine and housed in 5-star hotels....

I take it that "truffles and fine wine and housed in 5-star hotels" is a direct quote from the Geneva Conventions. Such a stupid argument. There are more choices than giving them torture or giving them luxury.

better to have them all there fighting our trained soldiers than to disperse them all over the world and attack innocent civilians...

Even better not to kill US citizens at all. The Iraq war is creating another generation of terrorists that will target the US.

you don't know that for sure...i love how you give what the IAEA says more weight than what our own soldiers say..

I bet that Minnesota TV crew works for the IAEA, too. There have several non-IAEA reports of these sites being looted, pleas to an undermanned military to guard these sites, etc.

okay, stop driving your car, turn off all your electricity...you are part of the problem...do you want the government to regulate everything? we are communists... the government should have as little intervention in our lives as possible.

It's not a use-energy or not-use-energy choice. We can improve on our energy usage, and the government can and has been pressuring auto manufacturers, for example, to produce more energy-efficient vehicles. Now though it's not Bush doing it, but California. Also, the government can provide pressure to increase alternative energy. Bush's hydrogen cells will likely be a good part of that years from now, but we need to do something today, too.

so you only want the criminals to have such weapons...bc they will still have them...the law abiding citizens are the only ones who wouldn't have them...

So you want to make it easier for criminals to have such weapons, while allowing a very small fraction of law-abiding citizens to have them. Actually, law-abiding citizens could have them before, but would have to register them, so that argument goes down the tubes.

why do you want to appease the world? and people said the same thing about the u.s. after wwII...

The rest of the world lives here, too. Why shouldn't they have a voice? I thought "democracy was on the march".

[Marcus Bryant]

The main problem is that Kerry wants to go back to the Clinton model of dealing with terrorism while Bush wants to maintain the posture we've had since 9/11. That's what it boils down to. I'll take the latter.