Heh, the first thing I thought of when I read "protecting the homeland for more attacks" comment (after smirking at the brilliant typo, of course), was the episode of The Simpsons when a bear wanders into town and the town over-reacts by setting up a "bear patrol".

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa: That’s specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn’t work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It’s just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don’t see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.

So President Eisenhower appointing Chief Justice Earl Warren was not an achievement? How about FDR appointing a whole court so that he was better able to implement the New Deal?

Reaching? What other rubric is possible to measure success in that area? There has not been a major attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. Therefore, I give some credit to Bush.

For example, if a city's crime rate dropped after hiring more police officers, would it be fair to conclude that the police officers probably had a role in reducing the crime rate?

That guy shot like 30 students last year.

No, that wasn't an achievement, they were just good choices.

That's like saying I made an "acheivement" by switching to Geiko.

Absolutely, because there is a direct relationship between the cause and the effect. You can produce nothing to show any relationship between Bush's actions and the effect.

Groucho. I think you just took the title for best spinmeister.

Translation: I, Munk, have no logical response to your logic, so I shall attempt to distract by calling Groucho a name.

You've called numerous people the same name.

And, just as KidRock said, you would spin EVERYTHING he said into a negative. As you did.

You're being just as thick headed as the people you hate.

Do you remember the anthrax attacks? No of course not. And I doubt you remember that the perpetrator(s) of that attack have never been found, let alone tried and convicted.

Bush's track record of preventing attacks leaves a lot to be desired. And he's also made the rest of the world a whole lot more dangerous. Is that really the best you've got?

And btw, Kidrock, have you EVER said to any Republican who claimed that Reagan is one of the great presidents, that he was being premature and that we have to wait another 30 years for history to decide. Be honest.

I qualified "attack" with the word "major". I do not consider the anthrax attack to have been major.
Who would I say that to regarding Reagan? Most people I know in real life do not talk about politics and the vast majority of people on this board loathe Reagan. However, I will myself say that Reagan was not a great President. There has only been 3 great presidents.

So we were attacked by terrorists but, naturally, that doesn't count because it would undermine your defense of Bush as our savior from the mean ol' bad guys. Please tell then, at what body count does such an attack become major?



But how can you say that, Kidrock, good or bad? By your reckoning, you should be able to make no such judgments for at least another 30 years.

Well, if you burden him with no judgment on Reagan, you must not judge Bush.

Keep digging yourself into a bigger hole Beeble.

To be fair, it's impossible to say whether many of Bush's homeland security ideas and anti-terrorism ideas have even worked or not. He could have stopped another major attack. He might not have. It's impossible to say one way or the other that it is or is not an achievement, because we don't know what would have happened without him.

Point #1: If we'd thwarted an attempted attack, if the massive and un-accountable spying/wire-tapping/torture had directly resulted in a capture or arrest of dangerous terrorists with imminent plans to kill us, you could more easily give credit where credit is due. But that hasn't happened.

After the first WTC attack, the terrorists who planned it took another 8 years to attack us again. And that's with Bill Clinton not wiping away all kinds of civil liberties or ushering in unprecedented levels of executive power. Republicans accuse him of doing nothing, which is completely false, but even if he did do nothing, it still took 8 years for them to do it again.

It has been less than that amount of time since 9-11, and having destroyed the buildings that they set out to destroy in 1993, it's not unreasonable to assume that another attack, should it happen, would take even longer to plan and execute. Even if Bush had done nothing, it is still unlikely that we would have been hit again.

Point #2: Even if it another attack had happened by now, you have to weigh that event with the cost in lives overseas, civil liberties, and money and ask yourself if it was worth it. Since 9-11, more Americans have died in the war to stop terror than died in the 9-11 attack itself. That's not to mention billions of dollars spent or lost and the erosion of civil liberties and the loss of American credibility throughout the world.

As it is, there has been no attempt to attack us again. And even if all of the current anti-terrorism measures were in place before 9-11, it's doubtful it would have been stopped that attack even then. After all, you don't get much more blatant than a memo that says "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the US" right across Rice's desk two months before the attacks.

Point #3: As accomplishments go, this one is weak at best, and has to be measured in context with Bush's gigantic failures and utter incompetency.

Now Turkey is invading Iraq.

The American people need to suck it up and realize stuff occasionally happens. All this national-security monkey business is a colossal victory for Al Qaeda. When you've got crazed fascists that denounce a red-blooded American for being unpatriotic with his lapel pins, you know the enemies are winning. Everybody remember, terrorists win with terror, and fear does not exist without the permission of the afraid.

I think any other President would have listened to his generals and stayed out of Iraq, thus allowing him to send more troops to go after bin Laden. So yeah, I think we would be even better off without him and with a President who didn't think he was taking orders from God and instead listened to his experts.

And let's not forget that Clinton caught the people who planned that first attack without resorting to torture, removing habeas corpus, secret prisons, or any other curtailing of rights.

Actually, no. Libs said 50 years. I never mentioned a time frame of waiting, I simply pointed out the fairer treatment that Harry Truman has received in recent years.

anyone who believes in such logic is stupid....


its like saying...

"I never got in to a car crash in 30 years and I will never have one"


Sure, steps have been taken, however he has done more to increase terrorism in many parts of the world. So his whole terrorism record is a complete disaster...

What I said is nothing like your analogy. You made a future prediction based on flimsy evidence. I drew a conclusion about past events from attainable evidence.

Here is how your analogy would compare to mine:

"I have never got in to [sic] a car crash in 30 years."
"Therefore I must be a pretty good driver."

Now if you would have said that, regarding my statement, that might be entirely fair. So, I'm gonna have to conclude that your an asshole.

no not getting in a accident could also be simple luck.

I know good drivers who get into accidents with no fault of their own.



Meaning, yes the US is safe now, but we thought that on Sept,11th 2001 before 8:30 am...

Yet we were attacked.

So do not assume that we have not been attacked to be a great thing. It is worrying prehaps, in that the longer they take the worse the attack.

Yes, added security and such will help however that is not much of a great abolishment. He has failed to solve the root of the whole problem.

I just think he can't really be hailed for stopping a terrorist attack, or, on a certain level, lambasted for doing too much without any terrorist threat. I'm not supporting or defending what Bush has done overseas or on home turf in any way. We simply don't know what the DHS, FBI, or CIA has done in terms of fighting terrorism because the whole war against terror is so secretive, for better or worse.

Though I don't disagree with any particular point. (In fact I actually like your third point. Made me lolz) It's probably all true, but neither you nore I can say that with certainty.