I'm Throwing an Axe at the TV the Next Time Someone Says "Bush Kept Us Safe"
Cross-posted at Daily Kos
No seriously, I'm prepared to throw an axe if I hear these words one more time:
"He kept us safe."
This sentence is now the last refuge of the most die-hard supporters of George W. Bush to revise history and defend his terrible legacy. They represent the latest pathetic attempt from a dying breed to grasp at straws and pretend that our most recent ex-President will be judged kindly by history. I've heard way too many neo-conservative pundits utter them lately. Karl Rove, Bill Kristol, Sean Hannity, Dick Cheney, and Bush himself, just to name a few.
And I'm sick of hearing them.
I mean, am I supposed to be impressed that since 9/11 we haven't experienced another major domestic terrorist attack? Does the right wing really want us to believe that because 2,000 people didn't die today in a horrible terrorist calamity, George Bush therefore did a bang-up job?
Yes, apparently they do. I didn't know that the mark of a good President was thousands of people not being blown up on American soil in a single day.
Look at it this way: Take an abusive husband and father. He gets drunk every night, then comes home and beats his wife and kids, innocent people who have suffered the pain and anguish under his hand for a long time and are too damn scared to go to the police. You and I and everybody else with a rational mind would rightly say this guy was a scumbag who should be hauled away. But wait a minute! His house hasn't been robbed in 10 years! What a FANTASTIC guy! I mean, he kept his house safe from invaders, right? Let's get him a trophy and a "World's Best Dad" mug!
Here's another example: A school bus driver, who's running a couple of minutes late, starts running red lights while driving recklessly at 120 mph. While on the way to school, he manages to hit mailboxes, fire hydrants, and other cars, but he somehow avoids causing any major injuries to other drivers, and all of the kids on the bus remain unharmed. Never mind that he endangered everyone on the road and on the bus; he sure kept those kids from dying. What a great driver! Let's make him superintendent!
Think these scenarios are too far-fetched? Here's one we've been hearing a lot about lately in the real world: A greedy, incompetent CEO of a major financial firm makes a series of awful decisions that runs his company into the ground and sends his stockholders' shares into a tailspin, causing an enormous financial ripple effect and contributing to an already worsening credit crisis. Oh, but he can't be such a bad guy! After all, he paid $1.2 million to refurbish his own office suite with such items like a 19th century credenza ($68,179) and a George IV chair ($18,468). He kept his company safe from the danger of modernized interior decorating!
If this all sounds ridiculous, it's because it is. Is the abusive husband a good dad because his house hasn't been burgled? No, he's an asshole and a criminal who just so happens to have a good home security system that keeps robbers away. Is the speed demon bus driver a responsible driver that can be trusted to keep your kids and other people on the road safe because he got to school on time? No, he's a maniac who never considered the safety of his children or the others on the road, and who was extremely lucky that nobody was killed. Was John Thain a responsible CEO of Merrill Lynch because he redecorated his office? No, he was an incompetent hack whose financial mismanagement led to $15.3 billion in losses for his company in the fourth quarter alone (but at least he was an incompetent hack with a taste for design!).
And getting back to the original point, it's the same twisted logic with the whole "George Bush kept us safe" meme. The right wing's entire house of cards, in this case, rests on whether or not you agree that the term "safe" simply means not getting attacked by Al-Qaeda or some other terrorist group in our own homes. So we haven't been attacked on American soil by terrorists since 9/11. Great. No, really. I'm very happy that a tragedy of that magnitude has not occurred since then, and will continue to hope that an event like that never happens again.
But there's a difference between avoiding a terrorist attack and being kept safe, a distinction that no rational person should ever ignore. George Bush recently said that there is good and evil in this world. I'm a firm believer that how a country confronts such evil says a lot about that country's character. And when you consider that America has now been forever tarnished with the ugly stain of torture in Guantanamo Bay, an economic calamity not seen since the Depression, a rapidly warming planet, a collapsing health care system, a city that was left to drown, and hundreds of thousands of lives lost in the War on Terror.....then I'm sorry, but that doesn't smell like safety to me.
So enough of it. I'm sick of the media allowing pundits like Rove and Kristol to perpetuate the meme of "he kept us safe" and frame the debate in such a dishonest way. Not fucking up in one major area does not make you a success when you fuck up everything else in every other major area. I'm a young, healthy, 25-year-old male who's just trying to make a living on his own. I don't consider my day an absolute success just because I didn't get fired from my job, even if I acknowledge that I'm lucky to have a job in this market. And I'm not willing to let history define a President as a good President when his biggest accomplishment is "2,000 people didn't die all at once." So Armageddon didn't happen on January 19, 2009. Heckuva job, Bushie!
From now on, I demand that every reporter, TV news host, pundit, journalist, and writer require that if somebody says the words "Bush kept us safe," he or she must immediately cut the person off, add the word "but," then fill that person in about how the whole "he kept us safe" argument is a bridge to nowhere.
Your move, the media. Just know that if you think Bush kept us safe, my TV is not safe from me.
Sincerely,
A Rational Person With An Axe
He didn't keep us safe from himself! The enemy within....
January 26, 2009 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
great point, TheraP!
January 26, 2009 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess having an axe would make me....an Irrational Person?
:)
January 26, 2009 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Giving you the benefit of the doubt, you could be a fireman. You could be a camper. You could be someone using a wood-burning stove.
I'd spare the tv and not throw an ax. But if you must thrown an ax, please throw a toy one. :)
January 27, 2009 6:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's my concept: Nerf axes, and nerf Florsheims for adults. We get the satisfaction of expressing ourselves vis a vis the stream of inanity emanating from our radios and TVs without having to inadvertantly bolster the economy via replacing our electronic gear.
January 27, 2009 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like that idea. Many years ago, when my son was a teenager, we had this stuffed ball, a bit bigger than a softball. We came to call it the "blame ball" and if we got upset about something, when cool heads prevailed, we'd throw the "blame ball" at the one "to blame" - but in a playful way. It did get off some steam. Thing like that are helpful. We could laugh. And then deal with the problem.
Yes, even in this terrible economy, someone could make money with your suggestion!
January 27, 2009 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's awesome! A blame ball!
Maybe a sense of humor could avert a war?!?
January 27, 2009 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Therap has it right.
I cannot add anything. maybe something later. I change the channel everytime that line is put on tv.
January 26, 2009 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately they are using the stupid sports minded approach.."SCOREBOARD". Any part of the media that plays that up, is still bathing in the left over bath water of which the previous administration bathed. So much nuance behind why no attacks in the U.S. under his watch, it's hard to explain in one single statement or paragraph or book. The mainstreem media is still willing to play off the ignorance/apathy of the american people. To act as if Bush's policies kept the terrorists at bay, or that he locked up every single insurgent or person that meant us harm, is just flat out disingenuos. Just like the lead up to the Iraq war, 2000 election, ect..ect....
I hate the media....yup I do!
January 26, 2009 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aw c'mon guys, he kept us safe after the death of over 3000 people and he realized maybe, just maybe that terrorism thing is serious. Bush should be strung up for his incompetence on 911 alone, not to mention the many criminal acts he is guilty of. I hate all niceties of acting like this asshole in someway deserves our respect simply for having stolen the Presidency twice and then bungling the job. I pray to God that even if it takes until he is as old as Pinochet was that they get him, indict him, arrest him and make him answer to the people of the world for his crimes.
January 26, 2009 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
My prayers go with you my son.
January 26, 2009 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen to that!
January 27, 2009 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
SB20 - Please take a deep breath. You're entitled to your opinion and certainly not the first one to express this viewpoint.
Maybe it's because I live in NYC and lived through it that I have a different perspective.
Every day on my way home from work I walk past what is still a big hole in the ground and I am thankful that it didn't happen again today.
And unfortunately we the general public will never know if Bush's actions did or did not prevent a second attack. We'll never know if a potential attack did not come together because of Bush's efforts.
No one is saying that "keeping us safe" forgives all the other bonehead moves that he made.
I'm not asking you to be impressed, but just thankful.
Yes there may not have been a 2nd attack because al Qaeda thought they'd done enough harm the first time around. Well, that one is hard for me to believe. And in my opinion all of our efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc. did in some way (great or small) deter terrorists from attacking US soil a second time.
January 26, 2009 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I appreciate the response, Bill. I have family in New York that lived only a hop, skip, and a jump away from Ground Zero, and my brother and father were both on a plane over the East Coast at the time that 9/11 happened (they weren't harmed, but I had no way of knowing that at the time). And believe me, this rant was not intended as a way of being ungrateful for my lot in life. After all, I'm not living in an impoverished country, and my community has been relatively crime-free. It is important to count one's blessings and I am very grateful that there hasn't been another attack.
However, all that said, I think it does a terrible disservice to 9/11 families and to the families of servicemen and servicewomen for the right wing to callously declare that Bush's policies have kept everybody safe. His policies haven't kept the country safe from a collapsing economy, nor have they been true to the principles of the Constitution. That's really my point here.
January 26, 2009 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
"However, all that said, I think it does a terrible disservice to 9/11 families and to the families of servicemen and servicewomen for the right wing to callously declare that Bush's policies have kept everybody safe. His policies haven't kept the country safe from a collapsing economy, nor have they been true to the principles of the Constitution. That's really my point here."
You need to keep the economy argument separate. Those are completely separate issues from whether he has helped prevent another 9/11 type attack on US soil.
And the 9/11 families that I know - most are very happy that we haven't been attacked again. And although they don't think Bush is perfect (or even good overall) but they think his foreign policy has helped deter future attacks. Notice I didn't use the word "prevent"
January 27, 2009 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree, Bill. Those are not separate issues. Our economy is heavily tied to our business with other countries such as India, China, Japan, European nations....and we have an enormous dependence on foreign oil. Bush's foreign policies have done a lot to increase our demand on foreign oil, drive up gas prices (which threatens our environment), and keep our defense budget ballooning while bankrupting other necessary programs like health care and infrastructure. A weak economy contributes greatly to weakened national security.
January 27, 2009 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can think what you want. But the economy could be humming and if Bush said "I kept America safe" you would still be ranting.
Our dependence on foreign oil has alot to do with energy policies too and consumer demand. Whether oil is at $140 or $40 we will still have a great demand for oil. And I guess based on your logic it's Bush's fault that oil went to $140 but not his fault that it went down to $40? I guess he's also to blame for the price of copper, aluminum, wheat and all the other commodities that trade in the open market.
Now you're trying to say that not only did he not keep us safe, but we're also in a state of "weakened national security".
You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth because if we're so susceptible to attack - then why haven't we been attacked again? Just dumb luck?
January 27, 2009 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
January 27, 2009 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, Bill, if your definition of being kept safe only takes into account the fact that Al Qaeda didn't attack us on American soil today....then sure, I suppose we're safe.
But when I read about Iran's nuclear capability expanding, and how terror cells have regrouped and restrengthened in Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, and how said terror cells are using our actions in Gitmo as major recruiting tools....I don't see that as making America safer. And those things I read weren't just the diatribes of some blogger. Those findings came from Senate Committee reports.
As I said in my post, I firmly believe that how a country responds to a crisis reveals a lot about that country's character. Deterring terrorist attacks is obviously a priority. But doing so at the expense of the rule of law is illegal, and it only serves to damage our country's character and moral standing.
And by the way, if your logic is correct that Bush deserves complete credit for keeping us safe from a terrorist attack....then he also deserves complete blame for 9/11 occurring on his watch.
January 27, 2009 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I did not say "complete credit" and thought I was pretty careful not to say he "prevented" but helped deter. And Bush and Clinton both deserve a lot of the blame obviously for 9/11. But we're not talking about 9/11; we're talking about what happened post-9/11 and should Bush get any credit for the fact that there were no attacks on US soil.
Both your and my positions are completely subjective. But you're very biased because you think we violated the constitution, "rule of law", "moral standing", etc.
You've read alot about Iran's nuclear capability, etc.
Have you also read about Richard Reid, the Lackawanna Six, Iyman Faris, Fort Dix, JFK airport, etc? It's amazing that you think it's just "luck" that we haven't suffered an attack since 9/11
January 27, 2009 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Both your and my positions are completely subjective. But you're very biased because you think we violated the constitution, "rule of law", "moral standing", etc."
Bill, here's Amendment 8 of that little document called the Constitution:
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
And here's a little nugget from the most recent Senate report on the Bush Administration's actions at Gitmo, dated December 2008:
Conclusion 1: On February 7, 2002, President George W. Bush made a written determination that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which would have afforded minimum standards for humane treatment, did not apply to al Qaeda or Taliban detainees. Following the President’s determination, techniques such as waterboarding, nudity, and stress positions, used in SERE training to simulate tactics used by enemies that refuse to follow the Geneva Conventions, were authorized for use in interrogations of detainees in U.S. custody.
Conclusion 2: Members of the President’s Cabinet and other senior officials participated in meetings inside the White House in 2002 and 2003 where specific interrogation techniques were discussed. National Security Council Principals reviewed the CIA’s interrogation program during that period.
Conclusion 3: The use of techniques similar to those used in SERE resistance training – such as stripping students of their clothing, placing them in stress positions, putting hoods over their heads, and treating them like animals – was at odds with the commitment to humane treatment of detainees in U.S. custody. Using those techniques for interrogating detainees was also inconsistent with the goal of collecting accurate intelligence information, as the purpose of SERE resistance training is to increase the ability of U.S. personnel to resist abusive interrogations and the techniques used were based, in part, on Chinese Communist techniques used during the Korean War to elicit false confessions.
Conclusion 4: The use of techniques in interrogations derived from SERE resistance training created a serious risk of physical and psychological harm to detainees. The SERE schools employ strict controls to reduce the risk of physical and psychological harm to students during training. Those controls include medical and psychological screening for students, interventions by trained psychologists during training, and code words to ensure that students can stop the application of a technique at any time should the need arise. Those same controls are not present in real world interrogations.
******
The Senate -- not some crazy whacko blogger, the SENATE -- found that the authorization of torture came from the President's and Vice President's desks. And as per the Constitution, the "enhanced interrogation techniques" utilized at Gitmo constituted "cruel and unusual punishment."
And pointing this out makes me BIASED?
January 27, 2009 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks - I had already read Levin's report. You're going off topic and torture is a completely separate post/blog topic. If you want to stick to whether Bush helped prevent future attacks post-9/11, that's fine. But stop changing the subject.
There have been alot of attempts to kill Americans (in America) post 9/11 and thankfully none have been successful
January 27, 2009 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aren't you starting the calendar a little late? Bush ignored the warnings about an attack using highjacked planes. What if he had REALLY kept us safe, and foiled this plot in the first place?
The attack's damage continues to ripple through our country; it even justified (in Bush's weak brain) going to war with a country that had nothing to do with the attack in the first place. Our country has lost blood and treasure because of this blunder. That is not keeping us safe.
Why should they bother to do it again as long as Bush was in office? He gave them everything they wanted, including a "Get Out of Jail Free" card for Bin Ladin. As long as Bush was in office and doing everything they wanted, they could continue to recruit, and our country would continue to self-destruct.
Safe indeed!
You are like an abused child who is grateful to his father for not slugging him for the past week; you don't realize it any more than that damaged child.
January 27, 2009 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
An abused child? That's a bit harsh.
why are you changing the subject. Of course Bush shares the blame with Clinton for 9/11 - I never said anything differently. We're talking about post 9/11.
And if you want to create a separate blog for the reasons we went into Iraq feel free. We've already discussed the connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. Iraq and Saddam had a lot to do with each other so it's not true to say that Iraq had nothing to do with al Qaeda
January 27, 2009 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well presented! Kudos!
January 27, 2009 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's for SB20 of course.
January 27, 2009 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh and by the way, I never said that it was just "luck" that we were kept safe from a terrorist attack. It wasn't just "luck" that Al Qaeda attacked us either, because 9/11 took years for them to plan and carry out. The U.S. does have a counter-terrorism program in place to deal with these problems.
But there's a difference between using the CIA and FBI to run an effective counter-terrorism program, and using the same programs at the expense of the Constitution. And I'm tired of the media framing the debate as "terrorists haven't attacked us since 9/11, ergo Bush kept us safe." There are a lot of ways in which he didn't keep us safe, i.e. the economy, increased national debt, strengthened terror cells in Iraq, and other reasons I've listed above.
January 27, 2009 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
January 27, 2009 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe, just maybe, if he'd called a timeout in his book-reading derby with Turd Blossom and read his intelligence briefing he might have prevented the first 3,000.
Keep sharpening that axe.
January 26, 2009 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder, will Obama or Bush get the credit for keeping us safe if nothing happens in the next 4-8 years AND Gitmo has closed?
January 27, 2009 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
THE BEST ANALOGY YET:
Saying Bush kept us safe after 9/11 is like saying the manager of Ford's Theater kept his patrons safe after Lincoln was assassinated.
January 27, 2009 7:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tom, there was never one president after Lincoln who was shot in that theater.
And do not forget that.
January 27, 2009 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's actually a great analogy Tom, as Ford's Theater closed shortly after Lincoln's assassination, not unlike w shutting down those pesky requirements to abide by international treaties, law, and that cumbersome document known as the constitution. He kept us safe by attempting to destroy some of the central pillars that define our society.
January 27, 2009 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
It seems to me that no president, nor any security system could "keep us safe" from determined terrorism. Just think about this logically. What if 20 groups of determined terrorists decided to simultaneously attack 20 sites? The list of possibilities are endless. The destruction and horrible terror that could happen is difficult to even think about. Nothing could stop any of that. We are too open of a society.
Why have we not had another massive terrorist attack? I don't know. Either they don't have volunteers willing to die for their "cause", which seems not the case, or, probably for strategic reasons, they have decided to leave us alone. At least they are leaving us alone for now. It seems a lot like Vietnam 40 years ago. The North Vietnamese could have done many acts of terror, but they refused. Why? They were in for the long haul. They knew that if they did certain things we would use nuclear weapons. They just wanted us to leave and were willing to wait. Something similar is going on today. We haven't been terrorised, but it has nothing to do with George Bush . It has everything to do with choices made by Bin laden and his cohorts.
January 27, 2009 7:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
You seem to have some pretty strident opinions. Perhaps you should enter the punditry while you're still fairly young. I'd recommend Air America, if they're still in business.
January 27, 2009 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure that wanting my elected leaders to follow the Constitution and the rule of law, even in the name of keeping the country safe, qualifies as a "strident" opinion. In fact, it's not even an opinion, it's a demand based on Constitutional grounds.
And while I like Air America well enough, I'm not much of a radio fan in general, so I'll pass.
January 27, 2009 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cosign sb20. Bush and the neocons were the only ones who tried to make a case, (an opinion in fact), that the constitution and international law can be suspended in the war on terror.
January 27, 2009 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was going to suggest that a drinking game might be safer, but given the frequency with which Righties toss that expression around, you might be safer tossing the axe.
For the time being, I'm saivng my brain cells and my displays. Every time I hear that phrase, the question of just how many catastrophic attacks a President is allowed pops into my head.
It would be nice if a Journalist would ask that question once in a while.
January 27, 2009 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bush gave away the combination to the safe.
January 27, 2009 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
After dropping it on our collective foot.
January 27, 2009 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bush and his surrogates seem to be trying to make the case that Bush kept us safe from his first inauguration thru 9/10/01 and 9/12/01 through 1/20/09. 9/11 was Clinton's fault because he warned the Bush admin about bin Laden. It was Clinton's fault because everyone knows what a notorious liar he is.
Okay, forget all the American deaths and injuries in Iraq and Afganistan, forget the attacks on other countries. It is true that no one flew any more planes into any American real estate.
What is not true, however, is that the destruction of the Constitution has kept us safer. If that were true, we wouldn't have as many deaths a year from illegal drug overdoses.
Ask any high schooler if they could get coke or heroin if they wanted to. If they are candid, the chances are they will say yes. [I say cocaine and heroin because they are smuggled in through the system that is supposedly keeping us safe from terrorism]
January 27, 2009 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess it was just dumb luck that we've been kept safe. Because Richard Reid, the Lackawanna Six, Fort Dix, JFK Airport, liquid explosives, Iyman Faris, etc etc never happened, right?
It was just dumb luck that the people I mention above never killed anyone?
January 27, 2009 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, I will take the bait MiddleClassBill, First of all the Lackawanna Six have not been convicted of anything as of yet, as I understand. The FBI informant who was participating with these guys has even come on record as stating that these guys were more interesting in ideas than realities. I am not defending them but let due process work. How many terrorist did Reagan save the US from? On that note, how many did George Bush Sr save the US from? How many did Clinton save us from? You know there are currently in our federal prison system, convicted terrorist (Just like Richard Reid, the infamous shoe bomber). Only with the diligent work of non-partisan Americans do we as Americans remain safe, not just a President. I am sure you know this, as the Armed Forces, FBI, NSA, CIA, Domestic Law Enforcement Agencies and others are some of the many employers of who keep us safe from harm.
However I saw from your earlier comments that you stated, "You need to keep the economy argument separate." How can you keep the economy separate? Does not our dependence on Foreign Energy markets effect our diplomatic relation with nations? Do not our trade policies affect our diplomatic policies with other nations? Does not our foreign Aid have an effect on our relationships with other nations? I think you might find it helpful to read a great book by a superb thinker, Machiavelli's "the Prince". Also I always seemed to think that many, if not all; conflicts could be traced back to the necessity of resources (water, energy, and food). If this is true then surely you can see that the economy or I should say that our economic policy is much more related to our Domestic Safety and Security than you previously stated.
January 27, 2009 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course they're inter-related but I was trying to keep the argument focused. And my point is that even if we were completely energy independent we still would have been attacked on 9/11 and Bush would have still tried to prevent future attacks. We are debating whether he should get any credit for what hasn't happened since 9/11
January 27, 2009 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't all of those except Reid either total frauds or wishful thinking?
The time between the first and second terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers was eight years, during a period when we were allegedly asleep at the wheel, homeland-security-wise. So we're only just approaching the amount of time we previously survived without a foreign terrorist attack due to "dumb luck".
If you include the Oklahoma City bombing, then we've maybe gone an extra two years so far with our super-effective homeland security policies than "dumb luck" had previously suggested.
And for what it's worth, while I was fortunate not to know anyone who was killed in the WTC bombing, I had to walk through a cloud of dust and ash and God knows what that day to get home, and have continued working near the WTC since November 2001 and have probably taken fifteen years off my life due to whatever the hell I've inhaled in that time.
January 27, 2009 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
No these were not frauds or wishful thinking. Iyman Faris for example got 20 years for plotting to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge. He met w/ KSM and worked with al Qaeda. Wishful thinking on your part if you think these people are frauds
January 27, 2009 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill, how long did Bill Clinton keep us safe? Obama is up to 7 days now!
January 27, 2009 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why are you changing the subject?
January 27, 2009 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, go suck your thumb!
January 27, 2009 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well some of us were having a healthy debate on the subject of whether Bush kept us safe post 9/11. If you want to discuss a completely different topic then please create a new blog.
Thanks again for calling me an abused child
January 27, 2009 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. And some of us made the point, which went way over your head, that just because no planes flew into buildings since that one particular date DOESN'T MEAN THAT GEORGE BUSH KEPT US SAFE.
AND BY THE WAY HE DIDN'T KEEP US SAFE ONE DAY PRIOR TO YOUR DAY THAT YOU START YOUR CALENDAR/CLOCK!
He failed! Get it? He failed? He failed. Just like he failed at every single other thing he did in his lame life!
BTW, it is okay to discuss related subjects on a thread. You don't have to pronounce every developing thought that shows up as "changing the subject" with an admonition to write a new blog rather than continue the conversation.
Grow up, Bill. Life is complicated You seem to think like our previous fearful leader -- black and white -- evil and good. It isn't that simple. Too bad for you.
January 27, 2009 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow you are angry. I don't think you're reading what I'm saying. I am assigning blame to him and Clinton for 9/11 but the point of this blog was to debate whether he has kept us safe post 9/11. I tried to point out that there have been other terrorist activities that we have stopped since 9/11. But nobody seems to care (or at least given Bush an ounce of credit for it)
January 28, 2009 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sometimes, I post things prematurely and find that my ideas were posted already further down the thread I had not yet read. So I waited this time.
Bush and the economy and "keepin' us safe" can be linked in a very interesting way. I went to Wikipedia on Department of Homeland Security[DHS] and was first astonished to find there are over 200,000 in that Department. But I then saw what agencies are included and could not say these were all created when w created Homeland Security. Although I would argue the Dept of Justice [Yes, I did say Justice is part of DHS, if you did not realize that] has been reconfigured in many and various ways. I was trying to make a snarky comment about creating jobs after 9/11. Most of those jobs already existed.
So I checked out Transportation and Safety Administration [TSA] of DHS. Did we get a lot of jobs out of that?!? Around 1550 jobs were created for TSA, BUT the budget according to wiki was $6.5 billion dollars. Now my calculator cannot get me the answer as to how much each employee is worth, but for that kind of money, we better be safe.
MCBill, I am struck by how the experience of 9/11 and the aftermath has shaped your thoughts regarding this matter. I am listening to your posts, but it is still a stretch to say Bush has been keepin' us safe. In the end, it is all conjecture and our forces in Iraq probably have distracted the terrorists for a while, but I think they may be accepting [not agreeing] that we will be there as long as we want, and the only real success they have had against us was 9/11, so it would seem something new will come along some day. God forbid! I simply doubt we can keep track of 300 million people in this country to determine which dozen may attack us next.
What I appreciate about Obama is that he is developing resistance to their proposition that they are heores of their people. Obama has rightly stated something I thought about a long time ago. Obama has said, "History will remember people for what they build, not what they destroy."
My thought was, "So they killed 4,000 people and what did they win? What are they offering in place of the Twin Towers? Bottom line: they got a whole lot of nothing to offer. Obama is going to point that out and they will be shamed. Their support will dwindle. It already has in Iraq and it will around the world. We have our noble cause, to bring peace to a battered people by demanding they meet us in peace. Bin Laden is not even part of the equation because he dare not show his face anywhere.
This is uphill diplomatic struggle. Better that it was done this way on 9/12, when the world was on our side. At that time, the world was our ally. Now we have to re-establish ourselves trying to get people to ignore our behavior these past 8 years. I have hope.
January 27, 2009 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
A little late to the post. It was a really good one so the only thing I have to offer is instead of an ax, get a staple gun. I don't have a tv myself but a dear friend told about the staple gun thing over 20 years ago and I have shared it with many people who have gained a great deal of satifaction from it.
January 27, 2009 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
You shoot staples at the tv, not throw the gun at it. (Reread the whole post and realized it was getting rather heated and didn't want people to get carried away you know!)
January 27, 2009 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink