Originally posted by =Tired Hiker=
I love how some people seem to think Bush single handedly ceased terrorism as though there was never any military generals or C.I.A. operatives involved. Bush is just the face man. Any President will get the same attention; praise or blame.
Yes yes we all know..any good that comes from this presidents administration wasn't done by Bush..yet all the bad things to come of it are allllll Bush's fault.
Originally posted by GCG
Try abbreviating "the war against terror" T.W.A.T.
How many Democratic think tanks did it take to come up with that?
Originally posted by Kinneary
Yet he bears the blame any time something negative happens. While obviously it's not all his doing, his policies surely were a huge impact, no?
His policies? Again, this is what I am talking about. He's not in this alone. They are not just 'his' policies. I doubt 'he' alone came up with them. Also, one could easily argue it was 'his' policies that were a huge impact on the US being a target for terrorism in the first place, no?
Bush is certainly not responsible for terrorism.
there are many differences between his whitehouse and those ran by Clinton and Bush Sr, but there is no doubt that he is not the cause.
The Bush Doctrine, and the subsequent polarization of the Muslim world against America (this is hugely debatable, though it is without question the impact has been overall negative) may have spawned a Jihadi movement stronger than existed at 9-11, but he certainly doesn't deserve as much blame, as say, Nasser, whos authoritarian Egyptian police tortured members of the Muslim Brotherhood, essentially starting the modern philosophy of Jihad.
Originally posted by inimalist
Bush is certainly not responsible for terrorism.there are many differences between his whitehouse and those ran by Clinton and Bush Sr, but there is no doubt that he is not the cause.
The Bush Doctrine, and the subsequent polarization of the Muslim world against America (this is hugely debatable, though it is without question the impact has been overall negative) may have spawned a Jihadi movement stronger than existed at 9-11, but he certainly doesn't deserve as much blame, as say, Nasser, whos authoritarian Egyptian police tortured members of the Muslim Brotherhood, essentially starting the modern philosophy of Jihad.
Yes, very well said.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I have no idea what you are talking about.
His point: You're assuming we weren't attacked again after 9/11 because of Bush/what he did. It's just as silly as saying "I have a rock; I'm not being attacked by tigers, ergo, this rock must repel tigers." Which I pointed out to one in the first page, just not in a comical manner as Xmarks did.
Originally posted by inimalist
but, Bush's actions might be keeping mainland America safefor instance, to kill a good number of Americans, arabs no longer have to travel to America, but to Iraq. God bless the President.
Possible, I guess.
Yes, I've heard the "we don't have to fight them here, if we're fighting them over there" rhetoric many a time.
Originally posted by KidRock
But what about the "millions of terrorists" we have created due to the wars 🙁
I'm not sure CNN is doing much polling in rural Afganistan or Iraq. Besides, their electricity is only working for a hour or two a day; I'm sure they're busy e-hating us for our freedom between the hours of 1:15 and 2:45 pm and can't get a signal on their cell phones.
Do you try so hard to sound like the idiot stereotype?