I will start by presenting two dates and two images.
January 20, 2001: Bush sworn into office.
September 11, 2001: Over 3,000 Americans were not kept safe.
Debate.
Over.
.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
SFDB Debates
Today, I'm going to conduct a debate with those people who unequivocally say that George W. Bush kept us safe while he was president. [Yes, they are out there.]
I will start by presenting two dates and two images.
January 20, 2001: Bush sworn into office.
September 11, 2001: Over 3,000 Americans were not kept safe.
Debate.
Over.
.
I will start by presenting two dates and two images.
January 20, 2001: Bush sworn into office.
September 11, 2001: Over 3,000 Americans were not kept safe.
Debate.
Over.
.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well you can argue the following:
ReplyDeleteOklahoma City Bombing 1995
World Trade Attack 1993
USS Cole Attack 2000
Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Embassies 1998
Khobar Towers Bombing 1996
But its all good b/c everybody was having too much fun talking about Billy getting head in the White House to care.........
Except Bill Clinton never bragged that there had not been attacks on his watch. Neither did Ronald Reagan after the Marine barracks were bombed in Lebanon. They knew that no president can say he will keep the country 100% safe, and it would be foolhardy to challenge the rest of the world to prove a negative.
ReplyDeleteBut some will try.
Its still very short sighted to blame one side or another considering terrorisim has been happening since the inception of our country only the terror characters change. We can argue blame till we are blue in the face but the fact is that terrorism knows no partisanship only their own agenda. Instead of R vs D's it should be Americans vs terrorists......
ReplyDeleteAmilapinga,
ReplyDeleteNo one is blaming anyone. No says Bush caused the WTC attack.
He just didn't keep us safe, this much is obvious.
-g
Exactly, g.
ReplyDeleteBut Clinton is their go-to guy when they've run out of ammo.
.
We argue that the measures he took after 9-11 kept us safe. Under dispute are (in no particular order)the following measures:
ReplyDelete- Attacking the Taliban in Afghanistan
- The Patriot Act
- Attacking Iraq
- Turning a blind eye to Israel's actions in the middle east
- Harsh treatment of Iran and other declared enemies like Venezuela and Cuba
- Tightening down the borders and stepping up enforcement of border laws
- Creation of Homeland Defense and wiping Eric Holder's eddicts saying Federal Agencies could not share data off the books
Can't remember the rest off the top of my head except the torture memos and rendition was a Clinton holdover so not from Bush originally
Those of us who say Bush kept us safe always include - "after 9-11".
The debate now is, will Obama be able to keep us from experiencing an attack here after taking apart the Bush aparatus? We'll see.
Not always, Ferfel. In fact, I have yet to see anyone add "after 9/11."
ReplyDelete.
Of course they do. I was wondering what brought this topic up and then I saw this over at HotAir.com
ReplyDeleteAnd figure it must also be all over the liberal sites.
Bad link.
ReplyDeleteAnd what other liberal sites have you seen this topic discussed at? I'd like to visit them.
.
And hasn't that been the debate all along? That the liberties Bush threatened and the wars did not make us safer after 9-11? That the measures Bush took using the emergency state created by the attacks of 9-11 were not needed?
ReplyDeleteAnd now we conservatives are saying the the steps Obama is taking using the emegency of the economic melt down are not needed and do more damage than good?
Here is the HotAir link. I was trying not to link you to a conservative site out of respect for your blog.
ReplyDeleteWell, attacking Iraq did more to undermine our security than just about any action by an American president in the last 50 years. Iraq went from being an oppressive dicatorship keeping its people demoralized and powerless to a feeble puppet government unable to protect its warring internal factions from murdering each other, and providing a fertile recruiting ground for terrorism.
ReplyDeleteHarsh treatment of Iran hasn't made us any safer, and served only to goad Iran into continuing its nuclear arms program. "Harsh treatment" of Venezuela and Cuba amounted to a lot of hot air without any real detriment to either Venezuela or Cuba. Our citizens suffered more than theirs.
Ferfel: The link, your comments...they have nothing to do with the post.
ReplyDeleteThe post takes issue with the broad statement that conservative like to use that "Bush kept us safe." Period.
That statement, I'm thinking you might agree, is false.
That's what this post was about. Nothing more. Nothing less.
.
"Our citizens suffered more than theirs."
ReplyDelete?
"That statement, I'm thinking you might agree, is false."
Taken literally as meaning from jan 20 2001 until Jan 19 2009 which is not how I've ever interpreted it - I agree it's false.
Robert Gates essentially told Iran today that we will not attack them over nuclear weapons. Maybe we would have or perhaps we would not - but did we need to tell them in absolute terms that we would not thus leaving them to get about the business of building their bombs? Gates was originally appointed by Bush and kept by Obama. It's things like this that make conservatives nuts. There's just no need to tip your hand to the enemy. The ripple effect will most likely be that Israel will act and cut ties from the US once and for all.
Just stop talking. I'd feel much more secure with Obama as President if his administration would stop saying things like this in public.
Ferfe wrote:
ReplyDelete"Our citizens suffered more than theirs."
?-
We no longer buy Venzeualan oil, which had been a major supplier for us, and that was one of the contributing factors of last year's outrageous oil costs.
Cuban-americans suffered by not being able to visit family members; many of those left behind are the elderly. Imagine being told that from now own, your government - the USA - will be determining when and if you can ever see your grandmother again.
Cubans were no more or less free for all of Bush's bluster, and neither were the people of Venezuela aided by our refusal to buy their oil.
CLJ: What? Who told you we stop buying oil from Venezuela? That is just not true. We are the only ones that pay for oil from Venezuela. And what does that have to do with Bush did not keep us safe? Rick: you narrow the issue so there can be no disagreement with your premise. I think you are right that Bush did not protect us on 9/11 but what about after 9/11?How do you answer that question? To be fair why not debate that question. And I think you are nick picking anyway. If in fact Republicans or whoever is saying that Bush kept us safe and they do not add after 9/11 isn't it kinda implied? Whatever.
ReplyDeleteAnon: the issue is narrow because the post is narrow and very simple...Bush did not "keep us safe" because 9/11 happened on his watch.
ReplyDeleteIt's sorta like a driver who ran over a bicyclist while driving drunk 10 years ago declaring today that he is a "perfect driver." Totally accurate if you disregard that one little bicyclist.
You can try to make the post say whatever you want...but it's point is narrow and very simple.
.
Simple math is: Dubya + 911 = Mission Accomplished.
ReplyDeletePNAC wanted another pearl harbor.
why did WTC bldg 7 collapse?
"
ReplyDeleteRick said
Exactly, g.
But Clinton is their go-to guy when they've run out of ammo.
"
Theres plenty more ammo with Carter and beyond but why argue ancient history, Ricky.....
ok, so by that logic we could point out that Obama said he would make all bills available online for one week and that he would help the economy. So far, all bills have not been made available and the economy has tanked even more.
ReplyDeleteWhy you continue to play this "point the finger at the other party" game is beyond me. It's irrelevant and sad that you've basically resorted to the very tactics employed by the Republicans you wholeheartedly disagree with. The latest post about Catholics and torture is quite offensive and I'm not even Catholic.
I understand this is your blog and you will write what u want and I can choose not to read but I've enjoyed this blog for a long time and feel as if I've got to know you. These acts don't seem like the same guy I've been reading forthr past few years.
The latest post about Catholics and torture is quite offensive and I'm not even Catholic.What's offensive about it? It's a poll and an observation. What does it have to do with the Republican Party? What exactly are you saying?
ReplyDeleteI've been doing these kinds of posts from Day One, Anonymous. Obviously you haven't been around as long as you say.
.