Obama defense track record better than Bush

[thevirtual]

Obama's national defense track record 100% better than Bush's during the same time period.

Discuss.

[INVIGOR]

...

[Dale Hubbard]

I think the broad perspective over the pond here is that America has an intelligent president now, instead of the complete nincompoop he replaced. That's certainly my own view.

[draggar]

I'm the consession stand:
200 DNF$ for a small popcorn
500 DNF$ for a medium
1000 DNF$ for a large

1500 DNF$ for nachos w/ cheese
750 DNF$ for the candy on the top shelf
1000 DNF$ for the candy on the bottom two shelves.

250 DNF$ for a soda
200 DNF$ for a bottle of water
$1,000 DNF$ for a beer (must show ID and be at least 21 years of age or older, or the legal drinking age of your location, whichever is higher).

No refunds if you eat all of your snacks before the flame war starts or if you buy them after the thread is closed.

Note to all the literal types: This post is a joke, I'm not selling any food.

[Dale Hubbard]

[Gerry]

I think the broad perspective over the pond here is that America has an intelligent president now, instead of the complete nincompoop he replaced. That's certainly my own view.

My friends in Italy and Austria repeat those sentiments almost to the letter.

Of course, so don't my buds in the UK, you included.

As you say, it is your opinion. But the opinion of many people and nations worldwide which helps open up dialogue on the international front.

[katherine]

Whether you like Obama or not, he's definitely more articulate than his predecessor.
Can't believe he was elected twice.

[INVIGOR]

...

[jasdon11]

Who's that?

Looks a bit like Michael Jackson...only a bit...a relative?

[Raider]

Obama's national defense track record 100% better than Bush's during the same time period.

Discuss.

Your leaving out the fact that Bush walked into office when National defense and security was at it's weakest and Obama walked into office when it was at it's strongest, Thanks to Bush of course.

[thevirtual]

Your leaving out the fact that Bush walked into office when National defense and security was at it's weakest and Obama walked into office when it was at it's strongest, Thanks to Bush of course.

If there had been a terrorist attack of any sort during the last 9 months you would not have given Bush even 1% blame for leaving a weakness in national defense. Correct?

[katherine]

Your leaving out the fact that Bush walked into office when National defense and security was at it's weakest and Obama walked into office when it was at it's strongest, Thanks to Bush of course.

Still bush and his administration were incapable of preventing 9-11 in spite of the intelligence available to them. I don't see how US Defense is at strongest when thousands of troops are stationed on foreign soil far away, where they should never have been in the first place.

[Raider]

If there had been a terrorist attack of any sort during the last 9 months you would not have given Bush even 1% blame for leaving a weakness in national defense. Correct?

Now your making assumptions and throwing out scenarios, but if you must know, If such an attack happened, I would research the facts before blaming anyone.

During the election, Obama promised to repeal the Patriot act in a move to please Liberals, but once in office and to his credit, he did just the opposite keeping with Bush policy and actually expanding the wiretapping program, Now if Obama kept to his original promise and stripped away the tools that Law enforcement needs to catch people that want to kill us, and a tragic event happened as a result, then YES, I would blame Obama, who wouldn't?

It may surprise you to know that I give Obama credit for a lot of what he's done on national security. He's NOT the "do nothing" President that Bill Clinton was. I'm simply opposed to his ideology and irresponsible handling of the economy, but that's for another thread.

Still bush and his administration were incapable of preventing 9-11 in spite of the intelligence available to them.

What intelligence is that?, you Liberals keep posting that Bush had all this intelligence that 9-11 was going to happen, but you never back it up, Why dont you post what the Bush Administration knew and we can go from there OK?

[thevirtual]

Now your making assumptions and throwing out scenarios, but if you must know, If such an attack happened, I would research the facts before blaming anyone.

During the election, Obama promised to repeal the Patriot act in a move to please Liberals, but once in office and to his credit, he did just the opposite keeping with Bush policy and actually expanding the wiretapping program, Now if Obama kept to his original promise and stripped away the tools that Law enforcement needs to catch people that want to kill us, and a tragic event happened as a result, then YES, I would blame Obama, who wouldn't?

It may surprise you to know that I give Obama credit for a lot of what he's done on national security. He's NOT the "do nothing" President that Bill Clinton was. I'm simply opposed to his ideology and irresponsible handling of the economy, but that's for another thread.

Obama is not the only person making these decisions effecting national defense and security etc... In his first months in office you cannot expect him to immediately strip away all the changes Bush made...

You seem to think that the means (partly criminal) used by the Bush administration are justified by the (neutral at best) results, while you block out all the horrible things that have resulted since (including terrorist attacks).

[Raider]

In his first months in office you cannot expect him to immediately strip away all the changes Bush made...

Who said I want him to?

Tell me; Was it not Obama who suspended Military tribunals within hours of entering office? only to bring them back?. It appears Obama is doing just about everything Bush did in keeping this Country secure, wouldn't you say?

You seem to think that the means (partly criminal) used by the Bush administration are justified by the (neutral at best) results, while you block out all the horrible things that have resulted since (including terrorist attacks).

You call the crippling of Al Qaeda and 8 years without an attack on US soil, "neutral at best"?...

[Gerry]

Still bush and his administration were incapable of preventing 9-11 in spite of the intelligence available to them. I don't see how US Defense is at strongest when thousands of troops are stationed on foreign soil far away, where they should never have been in the first place.

Well stated.

[thevirtual]

You call the crippling of Al Qaeda and 8 years without an attack on US soil, "neutral at best"?...

You seem to take terrorist attacks in this country for granted, that they require the full resources of the country and major sacrifice from the people, forever. You accept that this should continue forever, and you are convinced these "terrorists" are out there to "destroy our freedoms", and they have won forever.

You seriously want to praise GWB for the lack of terrorist attacks when the worst attack on this country took place under his watch? That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

[Gerry]

You seriously want to praise GWB for the lack of terrorist attacks when the worst attack on this country took place under his watch? That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

A planned attack was inevitable whether Bush or Gore was president...a PLANNED attack.

How a different president and cabinet would have handled the same intel given to Bush, Cheney, Rice is the question.

I am convinced that if the attack had taken place with another president, the response would have been swift and deadly.

I am equally convinced that if another person had been in office, we would have never set foot in Iraq without provocation.

For americans now wanting to distract every one from the real issues by claiming the current president is lying also convinces me that the same bunch of people have been in a coma for the past eight years.

To proudly wave the flag saying Bush has protected us, Bush has protected us! is little comfort to the families of the thousands of US soldiers killed and the hundreds of civilians killed.

[Raider]

You seem to take terrorist attacks in this country for granted, that they require the full resources of the country and major sacrifice from the people, forever. You accept that this should continue forever, and you are convinced these "terrorists" are out there to "destroy our freedoms", and they have won forever.

More and more assumptions, Is this the best you can do?

You seriously want to praise GWB for the lack of terrorist attacks when the worst attack on this country took place under his watch? That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

Ridiculous? You want to know what's ridiculous? is reading idiotic and ignorant statements like "Under his watch" How many times have we heard that one? It seems it's the only line Liberals and Dems can come up with to blame Bush for 911, No other credible evidence, just "It happened under his watch"

Thank God the majority of Americans don't think as close minded as you do, When Bush took office, 6 in 10 Americans felt Bush was a strong leader, soon after 911 the number rose to 3 in 4, and stayed there even after the facts about 911 surfaced.

I think it's pretty irresponsible of you and people like you to not even consider what led up to the tragic event, 8 years of allowing Al Qaeda to build their network, Over 2 years of planning under the blindfold eyes of the Clinton Administration, The CIA and FBI were warned TWICE that Al Qaeda was going to use our planes and fly them into US Government buildings, Twice they were warned, Twice they did nothing... And let us not forget about The USS Cole Bombing, no retaliation, The Kobalt Towers, again no retaliation for the American servicemen that lost their lives.

About those warnings, Do you know what "Project Bojinka" is? Likely NOT, you wouldn't be posting nonsense like; "Under his watch" if you knew.... Try Googling it and get back to us on that OK?

I do want to thank you for creating this thread though, You essentially admitted that Bush policy on National Security has been a success, since it's the same policies and security measures currently being employed by the President and his administration.

[Area52]

Congress did approve appropiations to send troops to Iraq under G.W., otherwise it wouldn't have happened. That approval included popular and connected Democrats. Democrats also voted for the war powers act and homeland security acts. I'm willing to bet Bush was receiving intelligence about Iraq from the same agency as Clinton.
What was Clinton's conclusion?

In Clinton's 1998 State of the Union Address, Clinton warned Congress of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's possible pursuit of nuclear weapons:

"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. The United Nations weapons inspectors have done a truly remarkable job, finding and destroying more of Iraq's arsenal than was destroyed during the entire gulf war. Now, Saddam Hussein wants to stop them from completing their mission. I know I speak for everyone in this chamber, Republicans and Democrats, when I say to Saddam Hussein, You cannot defy the will of the world, and when I say to him, You have used weapons of mass destruction before; we are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again".

Clinton signed H.R. 4655 into law on October 31, 1998, which instituted a policy of "regime change" against Iraq.