Some Presidents have terror trust upon them, like Bill Clinton in 1993 when, without warning the World Trade Center was attacked. Others are prepared and forewarned with their great understanding of the world around us, like George W. Bush who ran during the 2000 debates as the "anti-terrorism President". After 9/11 George W. Bush said he would have "moved heaven and earth to have stopped those attacks". Since it has long been established that he had warning that Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden were planning to use our own airplanes against us in a terror attack, we can presume that rather than figurative, W. Bush was being literal. Apparently he might move heaven and earth, which I am pretty sure he actually cannot do, but he would not order the airlines to lock their cockpit doors; something that has been done since the attacks, and has long been credited with helping Israel's airline, EL AL, avoid hijackings. Because he was warned but failed to act in any way, shape or form, George W. and his administration get a big NEGATIVE on their first brush with terrorism. George W. then invaded Afghanistan, the hideout of Osama bin Laden, after establishing that he and Al-Qaeda were the culprits. That goes down as a big POSITIVE. We then invade Iraq, even though intelligence tells us they are not related to the attacks, do not harbor Al-Qaeda, in fact Saddam Hussein was afraid of Al-Qaeda. That's okay. We don't claim they had anything to do with 9/11. We claim they are dangerous on their own right, preparing weapons of mass destruction and all. When this turns out to be false, and we start to learn that the administration knew these were lies, we suddenly start to claim they were part of 9/11 all along. By 'WE' of course, I mean our Government. Then the bipartisan commission finds, as we knew all along, that Iraq had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda or 9/11. George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, John McCain and Joe Lieberman have apparently not read any of this intelligence or been briefed on any of these reports. Many citizens of our country and people around the word have been getting the message however. That would go down as another big NEGATIVE. Our destroying the Iraqi military and having not a clue how to fill the void allowed Al-Qaeda to, for the first time, get a foothold in Iraq and start killing our troops with roadside bombs and Iran supplied anti-tank and helicopter weaponry. Incidentally, also empowering Iran. Our use of torture and indefinite imprisonment during the conflict has helped to turn Arab sentiment against us that had been won over back by the Gulf War. Our hypocrisy has tainted us not only in the MidEast, but on the entire world stage, emboldening Russia. We'll call that another real big NEGATIVE. Our taking the eye off the ball by going into Iraq leaves the job undone in Afghanistan, allows the Taliban to regroup and lets Osama gets away. NEGATIVE. That's five events with one positive and four negative for, or a 20% positive percentage. If you took math anywhere but President Bush's classes at Yale, you know that is a failing grade. If there is any place where John McCain most agrees with George W. Bush, it is in the fight on terror. Do the math. What is really sad is that because the Republicans talk tough, people actually believe them, even with their abysmal record. These are smart people, some of them anyway. If a stockbroker told them he'd make them a lot of money but had a terrible track record of losing people's money, these people would never listen to them. If they were shopping for a car and the salesman said this is the best car in the world, they would still look up Consumer Reports to objectively verify this. But let a Republican talk tough on terror, and it doesn't matter that they have done absolutely nothing, well, almost nothing, and certainly done almost nothing right. Like I said, DO THE MATH, and if you don't want to vote for Obama, then write in a vote for a house plant, or a sponge, or anything or anyone not McCain/Palin, because this country and its citizens cannot afford 4 more years of fighting terrorism the Republican way. We need to start fighting the real threats and we need to focus on that fight until we beat them! But when you do cast your vote, before you write in that house plant, remember that Bill Clinton, a democrat--shudder---caught the 1993 attackers of the World Trade Center, and when Al-Qaeda attacked us in other countries, Bill Clinton sent in cruise missiles, and when Saddam Hussein would break the no-fly zone, Clinton would bomb his bases and other military targets. By that count, Bill gets a passing grade. You can vote Obama, or vote for a sponge (Spongebob for President, anyone?), but I think we'll all probably be better off with Obama.
Posts
2 comments:
But neither Bill Clinton, who receives a passing grade from you [and Monica] for exploding at the right time, nor George Bush are running in this election.
SpongeBob? Will he stop the Saudi's by soaking up thier oil reserves?
While you accurately connect George and John, I'm certain that had John McCain been in the White House, you would have seen a very different, more effective war on jihad. Perhaps he would have had the good sense to follow former Prime Minister of Israel Ariel Sharon's advice, and go after Iran instead of Iraq.
Obama was interviewed by Bill O'Reilly last night. In the fascinating exchange Obama would not [or could not] admit that Iran was a state-supporter of the terror networks he believes we must fight. He identified al-Qaeda and Taliban networks as our enemy, but declined to put Iran as a part of that network. He is either stupid or politically trapped by the ultra-left wing of the Dem Party.
While it is true that Bill and George aren't running, I am trying to remind the good people of our great nation what went on because they seem to believe that Republicans are hard on terrorism and Democrats are soft. In reality, Republicans are ineffective on terrorism and Democrats are overcautious. Nothing about John McCain says he would do a better job. He is indeed a war hero, but nothing about being shot down, a prisoner for 5 1/2 years or abused in that prison is necessarily qualifying experience to be President. John McCain could easily be another ineffectual 'Jimmy Carter' administration because the Maverick hasn't shown he can get along with enough Republicans or Democrats. It is one thing to work with a couple and write a bill, but to sway all of Congress you need something else: you either need to be experienced at the subtleties of politics like the Clinton's, or persuasive directly with the American public like Reagan and seemingly Obama. As for Obama and Iran, I do not think he is stupid or politically trapped by the left. He has learned from the failures of Bush that threats and tough talk that can't be backed up are useless, and worse---inflammatory. Obama wants to try another way with these countries. As I have written here, I do not agree with his ideas in this area, but nothing America or Western Europe has done has worked, so perhaps we need a---dare I say it---change!
Post a Comment