Skip to comments.Bush says `no debate' about his keeping US safe
Posted on 12/17/2008 12:24:02 PM PST by NormsRevenge
CARLISLE, Pa. President George W. Bush, ever focused on his legacy, said Wednesday "there can be no debate" about his record of preventing another terrorist attack.
Evoking harrowing memories of Sept. 11, 2001, Bush said virtually no one could have predicted back then that the country would not be hit again for the rest of his presidency.
"It's not a matter of luck," Bush said, defending his security policies.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
GW has disrupted, dismantled and boxed in al Qaeda globally. If we are attacked on our soil under Obama, the Democrats and Obie will have no one to blame but themselves.
On this issue there is NO DEBATE!
Did we have another terrorist attack or not?? Yes or No?
Have other countries been hit since then?? Yes or No??
Was Bush President when these attacks did NOT happen?? Yes or No??
Great job on the WoT.
Domestically, perhaps not so.. most evidently, of late, economically.
and Yes, I am trying to be generous, being a compassionate conservative’ and all. ;-)
(slams the bunker door shut for the coming salvos)
There. Fixed it.
I hear that other fella is still looking for his legacy.
Indeed. Thanks for keeping us safe, Mr. President.
GW should have been screaming this at every press conference. The #1 job of the POTUS is national security! Number two is a distant second.
His view of keeping us safe from terrorist attacks imho have been countered by the millions of illegal aliens who have invaded our country and raped, killed, and attack our citizens.
That's BS, and AP knows it.
I guess they know they're doomed, so they've decided to go down as good "comrades."
On this issue there is NO DEBATE!Really?
Did we have another terrorist attack or not?? Yes or No?On our soil? No.
Have other countries been hit since then?? Yes or No??Yes-with-a-capital-Y. Madrid, London, Mumbai, Istanbul and way too many attacks to count in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Was Bush President when these attacks did NOT happen?? Yes or No??Bush was President when all of these attacks happened.
His view of keeping us safe from terrorist attacks imho have been countered by the millions of illegal aliens who have invaded our country and raped, killed, and attack our citizens.Excellent point, BGHater.
Did we have another terrorist attack or not?? Yes or No? I could come up with plenty of small scale attacks, that, when lumped together, present a pattern of Islamic attacks on the U.S. since 9/11/01.
Have other countries been hit since then?? Yes or No?? Yes.
Was Bush President when these attacks did NOT happen?? Yes or No?? Yes, he was. But as mentioned above, there have been a lot of smaller things that show a pattern. There is also the significant issue of our wide-open borders.
While I would agree with you that there have been no large-scale attacks, there have been many small-scale attempts by muslims to create havoc. There was even one, potentially significant attack, that was prevented by the perp himself when he was, thankfully, sitting alone after not being allowed into a football game (Oklahoma - I believe 2005). That could have been very bad.
Wishful thinking. You know darn well Bush will be blamed for anything that happens regarding the WOT, unless of course, it is good news.
First huge mistake Bush did make, regarding Sept. 11, was to not fire Minetta and Tenant, who as Clinton holdovers should have been made scapegoats for their failures.
The Anointed One will not make the same mistake.
Its fascinating how you get to rationalize the War on Terror as a non domestic item.
President Bush has raised this nation to unimaginable levels of self serving ungratefulness.
The foremost reason that Conservatism is faltering today is a refusal to acknowledge the good accomplishments of conservative Republicans like President Bush.
The reason Conservatism abounded post Reagan is because Republicans would not allow Reagan to be tarred and feathered in the public sphere. People do not have to agree with everything Bush did to acknowledge that he was a great and incredible leader. I more and more think he may actually surpass Reagan as a great President.
Imagine these scenarios:
Reagan tarred and feathered as the biggest deficit spending President in history.
Reagan tarred and feathered as the terrorism turncoat who backed down to Hezbollah in Lebanon— inciting further terrorism
Reagan tarred and feathered as the President who bailed out the Savings and Loans for billions of dollars.
Reagan tarred and feathered as the Amnesty President for allowing millions of illegal immigrants to visit and stay in our nation.
Reagan tarred and feathered as appointing Sandra Day O Connor to the Supreme Court— a disastrous pick for the Conservative movement.
I sincerely believe that Reagan was one of our great Conservative Presidents. So I do not think the list above should define him even though it easily could. The reason conservatism falters today is that it is largely defined by a cowardice that refuses to defend the greatness of its own leaders. Instead of showing courage, conservatives continue to romanticize the past and create a sense of elusive mystery about what it takes to be a conservative leader.
President George W. Bush. You are without question one of the World’s great leaders and an American hero. You have defied one of the most evil global movements humanity has ever known. Your large list of despicable enemies more than defines you as a great man and leader.
I will take on all comers on this point.
You can be sure that for the next four years every single thing that goes wrong will be laid on President Bush and his administration.
"W"orse taking credit for no attack on his watch is like:
Clinton taking credit for the stock market at 12,000
Bob Stoops taking credit for Sam Bradford's Heisman
Al Gore taking credit for inventing the internet
John Kerry taking credit for his 1st Purple Heart Medal
Jimmy Carter taking credit for anything he's ever done ...
More Bush BULL!
“...ever focused on his legacy..”
There are a lot things Bush can be faulted for, but egotism is NOT one of them!
Well, you are proving my point.
If attacks happened on foriegn soil (for which the correct answer was YES) that shows Al Qaeda was active (and not impotent like Democrats claim).
The fact that an ACTIVE Al Qaeda was unable to strike in the USA in those interim years speaks volumes.
Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm!
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Why thank you, honey.
Lisa: By your logic, I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Hmm. How does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work; it's just a stupid rock!
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: Hmm... Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
It was not really intended to be seen as such but I could see your take on it.
Obviously its reach was into every municipality across the land to some degree and still is to this day..
It has been offered as a war that could last decades before it may ever be won and pitfalls are to be expected along the way.
I fail to see the President’s efforts as anymore of a conservative nature than Reagan’s, more an American spirited one.
Maybe Lincoln should be added to the mix as well as he fought a civil war in his very own homeland, imposed many stringent measures that parallel what the President has backed as necessary.
There are a heckuva lot more chips on the tables these days than there were back then and sadly, we face an even colder character in the ol’ USSR today than we did back then.
Makes ya wonder why anyone would even want the job, huh? ;-)
That's not necessarily true.
If/when we are attacked again the first thing I will want to know is if they came in over our open borders. If so, the blame will lie quarely on a president who refused to close our borders at a time of war.
We’re apparently supposed to beleive that if we are attacked Bush will be free from blame even if our attackers came across our open borders during Jorge’s term.
Actually, it is.
King Jeorge Bush keeping Americans safe:
Shame Obama won’t do the same for us.
Your answers confirm his claim Mr. Know Nothing At All
My Terror-free Weekend
Let’s see now, what did I do last weekend. Sat., I got some news from Vanguard about my 101K. Then sister called, said her husband had been laid off. Evening, I went to Wally World and bought some more king-sized bags of rice and pinto beans to put in the chest freezer. And a couple more boxes of #4 buck, 12 gauge.
Sunday afternoon, I told an able-bodied young pendajo to get the h*** out of the handicapped mens dressing room at Macy’s. It took a while since his English was nonexistent and I was using all the abusive espanish palabras I know. I guess he didn’t understand the wheelchair symbol on the door.
But no attacks by deranged muslims. They musta all been down at the airport bathing their feet/
You know something? If Bush was secular we could all call him a Socialist and the transformation would be complete.
The once mighty America is now just an old worn out, harpooned dying whale and our enemies know it.
With the incoming administration, for the first time, we are in dire peril of being invaded on our own soil.....and soundly defeated!
First, there are many who have openly advertised our open borders to our enemies while complaining about the NY Times advertising our military strategy to those same enemies.
Second, the advertised open borders have not been exploited by our enemies in 8 years so it is now spun as a negative.
Liberals would be proud of the posts around here.
The fact that an ACTIVE Al Qaeda was unable to strike in the USA in those interim years speaks volumes.Not really. 1) Unless you have access to information you shouldn't share in public, you don't know what Al Qaeda even tried. 2) After the initial attack on the WTC in 1993, there were no further attacks on American soil. You going to tell the friends and families of people who died in the USS Cole and other attacks that Clinton kept us safe? I hope not.
You don't think that Al Qaeda operative couldn't drive a truck full of explosives and even nuclear materials right across our border from Mexico or Canada if they wanted to? Bush has been lucky. Let's pray that Obama is as lucky, because he isn't planning to protect our border any better than Bush did.
That is patently untrue. If said attack is attributable to the fact that this open borders president has left us vulnerable by leaving the borders open the blame will lie squarely on him.
Moreover, and in light of his refusal to close our borders, any such success is preventing additional attacks have been if only in part, just plain luck.
Is that supposed to exculpate Jorge for leaving the borders open when he knows there are enemies who would gladly cross them with the express intent of killing as many innocent Americans as they possibly can? What about his responsibility to protect Americans from the next attack? He will be to blame should we be attacked again and that attack came from over the borders; you cant spin that.
Second, the advertised open borders have not been exploited by our enemies in 8 years so it is now spun as a negative.
Using that logic you could have said on September 10, 2001, that because no one has ever flown a plane into the WTC towers no one ever will. September 11th changed that though, wouldnt you say?
Leaving the borders open during a time of war is beyond asinine, it is criminal. And I, for one, plan to hold Jorge accountable IF and WHEN the next attack occurs and it is discovered they used Jorges open door. You and your fellow Bushbots can try to blame Obama but youll look as foolish as those who tried blaming Bush for 911 when we know that entire operation was hatched under Clinton.
Liberals would be proud of the posts around here.
They would. As it is illogical postings like yours that they rely upon in their world which is absent of personal responsibility.
I don;t see a single warrant for any of your analogies.’
No one supported President Bush’s surge in 2006. The man stood alone and prevailed on a question that all Bush reactionaries by the millions feasted upon his foolishness to not admit that Saddam Hussein was a fantastic leader and good for all of humanity.
Ultimately, his decision decisively defeated Al Qaeda in Iraq. Al Qaeda claimed throughout the conflict that Iraq was their decisive victory over the United States. It would be America’s second Vietnam. Had that proven true, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Shia Iran, and the entire network of Islamic Fascism would be profoundly propelled forward in its capacity to attack our homeland. It is unlikely that major attacks would have failed to escalate and that hordes of delighted militants and even dreadfully reluctant recruits within Iraq would have militarized for further annihilations of allies such as Israel.
Your denunciation of the “Bush Bull” is the height of preposterous and without question— an American soldier killer.
The Constitution clearly specifies the role of Commander in Chief as among the most defined of President’s power— as opposed to budgetary issues and a slew of obviously Congressional responsibilities faux conservatives love to foist upon President Bush. Your sloppy list of analogies is devoid of any Constitutional sense. Filled with bogus rage at some allegedly authentic conservative view, you lash out at one of our greatest leaders who indeed stood tall at a Global Gettysburg and has ushered in the OPPORTUNITY to defeat one of the most dangerous social movements humanity has ever known.
Your comments are utterly contemptously foolish but sadly typical of this Nation.
It is true no terrorist attack has been reported to have occured in the US since 911. Although, we did have some suspect events occur where terrorism was immediately ruled out. Ruled out before any investigation was began much less concluded.
The fact is Bush was so focussed on defending Iraqi freedom err...I mean fighting terrorism in Iraq, that he left our back door wide open to illegal immigrants. Negligence of this magnitude cannot possibly be viewed as keeping the US safe Mr. Presidente.
We must guard the back door as well as we guard the front door. But even that doesn’t protect us from the legal immigration of potential terrorists. The 911 terrorists arrived here with the proper paperwork. How many more of them have arrived since? I doubt anyone knows since we are too busy defending Iraqi freedom...err I mean fighting terrorism in Iraq.
Then you would have to lay the blame on every President we have ever had including Reagan, who not only didn't close the border but gave amnesty as well. I loved Reagan but he didn't close the borders, or really control them, neither did Bush I or Bush II, nor Kennedy or Lyndon B, or Nixon or Carter. So trying to lay the blame solely on W is just a tad sh**ty to say the least.I didn't like his border policy, still don't, didn't like his spending and still don't, but to say he is the sole cause of the open borders, especially when our congress wouldn't stand for enforcing the laws either and in fact wanted to give amnesty to every illegal in the country, is, as I said, just a tad sh**ty.
Oops on post 23, forgot to throw in BJ Clinton as another President(how could I forget the a**hat)who didn’t control or close the borders.
“You have defied one of the most evil global movements humanity has ever known.”
The problem is Bush is still peddling islam as a religion of peace. Such malfeasance hardly qualifies as defiance. In fact, his hard sell of islam as the ROP suggests the complete opposite of defiance.
1. President Bush’s decision to rhetorically divide Islam between pro-terror and anti-terror elements was brilliant and decisively successful. His critics are again foolish on this point. A global total denunciation of all Islam would have resulted in an outright global conflagration that would have already destroyed several major European cities and toppled major governments we need around the world.
2. The terrorists undoubtedly have an interpretation of Islam. It is foolish to miss this point. Whether theirs is the dominant or singular view is utterly irrelevant. That view must be defeated. All means— including division— are rhetorically shrewd. If only one muslim disagrees with violence interpretations of the Koran— so what if this is appealed to? No one really knows. It is most assuredly a rhetorically shaped result.
3. I think a good and reasonable case could be made that President Bush is principally responsible for the deaths of more Islamic bad guys than you or the some of Bush’s critics agreeing with you on this point. Because this is true and it is a war, it is fair to point out that unreasonable criticism— which yours is far short of— is contributing to the deaths of good guys fighting the Islamic bad guys. In short, Bush has results, his critics have less than none.
4. We have Islamic allies in the War on Terror whether we care to admit it or not. They are useful and perhaps even necessary. A President is not Philosopher King, it is not his role to divine the content of religions. It is his foremost task to protect the nation. Game set match he has. When will the mindless chatter stop?
And the only thing shitty is Jorge W. Bush's dismal performance as POTUS.
What are you smoking Tex? Loco week? John McCain and the Pentagon had to literally drag Bush away from the Rumsfeld "Limited Warfare" strategy click here to get the surge started ... Bush resisted every early call!
Your denunciation of the Bush Bull is the height of preposterous and without question an American soldier killer.
Your ignorance and denial of fact is indicative of the old axiom that when you kick the BS out of a Texan you can use a matchbox for their coffin!