Feel safer with Bush?

[Nbadan]

mnbbvfffghhjkkkkkkkk,..l;ppkm, mmn m,ll,llljukio[[;loopoookiuuiollpp

[boutons]

Removing Saddam Hussein was NOT the reason that shrub/ head gave for starting this war. WMD was, "immediate threat to USA" was, "no other option but immediate war" was. lie, lie, lie, lie, now 1100+ military lied dead.

shrub/ head have replaced Saddam as the number cause of deaths of innocent Iraqis, and Saddam lacks shrub/ head's coupability in the deaths of 1100+ US military.

[bigzak25]

i'm glad to hear that dan. (regarding attacking afgh. prior to 9/11)

as for boutons....jeez man..."shrub/ head" ???

i'm sure you can make your points on a higher level than that.

[spurster]

Both Clinton and Bush were weak on terrorism before 9/11. Almost everybody was. Even Reagan backed out of Lebanon as I recall. That was the politics before. Clinton should have seen the writing on the wall after various bombings, and so should have Bush. Not many people did, including myself, so the majority of American was ok with that policy.

After 9/11, no politician is going to be elected if he/she is or appears to be weak on terrorism. Simple as that. Even the most conniving, cynical, and slimy politician whose only goal is life is to be reelected and reap the rewards of corporate payoffs and the politician's retirement system can appreciate that. The issue is not being weak; the issue is how are you going to address it.

Do you want to pretend that you are living in a fantasy cowboy western, where all that matters is that we get them before they get us? Or do you want to address the problem with all the levers that we have: military, intelligence, political, diplomacy, economic, and what not? And we aren't going to get far unless we get help from the rest of the world (which is where the terrorists generally are), and that means a careful mixture of cooperation and confrontation, not a go-it-alone unilateralism.

[Useruser666]

Boutons, try and call Bush by his real name. How can anyone debate when you resort to such name calling? I agree with you Spurster. But I also see that Bush has been tough on terrorism. I know just because there has been no more attacks on US soil doesn't mean there ren't any more terrorists. But I feel it is somewhat of a succes that we haven't been attacked in THREE YEARS since then! Something has to be working. This must especially be true after we went into the heart of terrorism and really stirred things up. Even if you don't believe the heart of terrorism is Iraq and it's just Afghanistan it doesn't change things. It doesn't change what needs to be done to fight terrorism. I just think Nush has done about as much as a president can without severely infringing upon the people's rights. When the question about what should be done after 9/11 was first asked, what did you expect would come from that? What would be the results you hoped for at that time? Could you have guessed that would not be attacked for the next three years? At the time, I was really worried we would be attacked again and again, yet we haven't. I understand your views very much so. Call me the Devils advocate.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

Don't forget that the 9/11 attacks were in the making for years.
It's not like it was planned and done in a few months.

[Hook Dem]

"hook dem" advances the dialogue and enlightens us all.

When shrub/ head conduct themselves like leaders of the country, then I will call them by their proper names.

I personally don't care if you ever call him by his name. I was just pointing out that you are filled with hate. Deny that one!