| REVIEWER | RATING & REVIEW |
 | MariusQelDroma (36) 04/26/2008 | Bush may have done some good in waking up people to the danger. That being said, Dubya's foreign policies are breeding terrorists faster than he can have the military kill them. His domestic policies both infringe upon the rights of law-abiding citizens (spying without warrents, etcetera), and do nothing to fix real problems here at home (the economy, illegal immigration, and others). Congress has done nothing to help the situation, so I fault them just as much. The courts have also failed to check and balance where needed. All in all, a sad mess we have here...
(1 voted this helpful, 2 funny and 0 agree) |
 | fitman (36) 04/25/2008 | Why should Islamists attack us when they've got our leaders doing exactly what they wanted them to do after 9/11?
(1 voted this helpful, 2 funny and 1 agree) |
 | lmorovan (12) 04/25/2008 | The evidence speaks for itself.
(2 voted this helpful, 5 funny and 0 agree) |
 | EschewObfuscation (61) 05/19/2006 |  It's an ok defense within the narrow context of national security. If this were the only responsibility accorded to the president, he'd have very high approval ratings.
He doesn't because we expect our president to close the borders (which really is the responsibility of Congress), control our runaway spending (which is also the responsibility of Congress), keep people from suffering when hit by a hurricane (wouldn't you look to your local leaders first before FEMA?), kill or capture bin Laden (I would think re-vamping our sadly broken and confounded intelligence-gathering agencies was at least a reasonable first step, now that Jamie Gorelick can no longer tie their hands) and develop alternative fuel options to reduce our dependence on oil from the Persian Gulf.
Now, which were the important ones again? Oh, yes, national security and preventing another domestic terrorist attack. It's funny how some here saddle him with singular responsibility for protecting us from another inevitable islamofascist attack, then call the surveillance of intercontinental phone call records "spying", the holding of islamofascist prisoners of war "torture" (even though the same tactics used on them have been used for many years) and clamor for a reduction in our dependence on foreign oil but oppose drilling for the ocean of oil in the Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve in Alaska, in an effort to keep the caribou comfortable. What was it you wanted, again, and what are you willing to sacrifice for it?
UPDATE: mag, I guess I'm not tired of it because I don't see myself as defending Bush or his policies so much as shooting holes in the criticisms, which always seem flimsy because they're so exaggerated and breathlessly demonically portrayed.
But, you and I are intellectually in agreement on torture. I am simply not convinced that anything specifically defined as torture (other than the Abu Graib incidents, for which people were court-martialed) has been legitimately reported. I'm not defending Bush on "torture" because Bush didn't change anything. It's the military he inherited from the Clinton Admin, mostly. Right?
Agree with your point on ANWR. But, why then are we not supplying ourselves with an interim partial solution by drilling there. Long-term solutions don't come from presidents (except Carter with "put on a sweater ") anyway. Clinton had eight years with "Environmental Al" as his sidekick, and they did absolutely nothing.
Wiretaps? Like recorded conversations? Of innocent domestic calls? I thought the scandal was about records of international calls made. Who was wiretapped? Was it recorded? If so, why? That may be new ground.
See, I think we agree on most things.
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | trebon1038 (62) 05/19/2006 | Living as close to Oak Ridge as I do I see the difference in security here. Over all in the country I can't say too much but here things are stepped up. They closed all access roads to Y-12 and the National Lab to the public and every package and vehical allowed into the "badged" area is checked by bomb dogs now. 9-11 took years to plan and Im not saying that another attack can't happen, but Bush put his foot down a little harder than his predicessor on the security issue.
(4 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | zuchinibut (36) 05/19/2006 | I believe that the protection of American civilians on our own soil was a huge issue after September 11th, and I believe that our government has done a good job of ensuring this. I don't believe that terrorists have given up trying to attack the United States after their success 5 years ago, and so far they haven't been successful again. When it comes to terrorist attacks, No News is Good News, so I give our government credit for keeping citizens safe since 9/11.
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | abichara (60) 05/18/2006 |  I wouldn't attribute this all to Bush necessarily. There have been a few terrorist plots which have been foiled since 9/11, but there were also many plots which were discovered before 9/11, such as the plan to bomb the LA International Airport in 1999. Most experts in the field believe that its only a matter of time before we're attacked again. History is going to record that 9/11 signaled the beginning of a new political era, one which is defined by strong government, security interests and the politics of fear, unfortunately. But the government does not always necessarily react competently, and in many instances may abuse the power which may be granted to it. My sense of the matter is that the government merely reacts to the types of threats we find, therefore, we base many of our assessments on yesterday's data rather than coming up with new ways of defending ourselves. That leaves us very vulnerable to attack at the end of the day. Sure, we haven't seen another 9/11 since, but remember, events of such epic proportions are usually rare.
(4 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | CanadaSucks (45) 05/18/2006 | Sure. . .taking off my shoes at the airport will prevent innocent deaths. . .this 'security' is a shell-game designed to emotionally placate you. . .take a trip to Disneyland if you think we're safer. . .
(6 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | Drummond (54) 05/18/2006 | Well, that's pretty lame. There hadn't been a terrorist attack between 1993 and 2001 either, but plenty of Republicans want to blame Clinton for 911.
The jihadists have a different sense of time than we do. They are more patient. We want instant gratification, so we assume everyone else does as well. They're fighting a war of eternity. That's the one advantage they have.
(6 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | jaywilton (26) 05/18/2006 | Excellent point;not a sure thing under Clinton
(5 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | doobiesNhof (21) 05/18/2006 | There hasn't been an attack on US soil since 9/11 because:
1) They are planning something huge that may take years to pull off
2) They want to make us sweat
3) Time is on their side, not ours
4) We've been fortunate to have stopped a few potential attacks but by no means does our government know where all the cells are, what they are planning and when they will strike
5) Bush (with his lack of intelligence) and our intelligence branches (CIA and FBI)are hoping that the inevitable attack(s) won't happen (as we all do)but based on us having NOT captured or killed OBL, I shudder at what they might be missing right at our doorstep.
(5 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| 1-11 OF 11 | View All |