I PREDICT: Closing Gitmo Opens Door to Another 9/11

[KenH]

Is he not also commended for it not happening after that?

Not on home soil but there were several terrorist attacks on U.S. outposts after the first attack on the World Trade Center - the barracks in Saudi Arabia, the embassies in Africa, the Cole.

I just find it interesting that folks who give George W. Bush a pass up through 9/11/2001 will probably not do the same to Barack Obama if, God forbid, a terrorist attack happens on U.S. soil(or against a U.S. outpost) on or before 9/11/2009.

 

[StefanM]

I understand.

However, I am curious as to when you would say that President Bush became responsible for what took place during his presidency?

I have no problem with crediting him for no attacks on U.S. soil after 9/11/2001. However, his presidency didn't start on 9/12/2001.

Neither am I saying that he bears the sole responsibility for what happened on 9/11/2001. Then again, he does not get the sole credit for no attacks on U.S. soil after 9/11/2001.

He is responsible on some level from his inauguration. However, the attacks on 9/11 were in the works before 1/20/01. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush share responsibility here.

 

[StefanM]

Not on home soil but there were several terrorist attacks on U.S. outposts after the first attack on the World Trade Center - the barracks in Saudi Arabia, the embassies in Africa, the Cole.

I just find it interesting that folks who give George W. Bush a pass up through 9/11/2001 will probably not do the same to Barack Obama if, God forbid, a terrorist attack happens on U.S. soil(or against a U.S. outpost) on or before 9/11/2009.

If an attack occurs in the first year of the Obama administration, I will give him the benefit of the doubt. Unless he is negligent, it won't necessarily be his fault.

 

[KenH]

Bill Clinton and George W. Bush share responsibility here.

I agree with you.

 

[JustChristian]

I said long ago that Obama was an empty suit. He proved it.

Who cares about credibility? The islamic world hates us anyway, we're the Big Satan according to them. They will attack again, it's only a matter of time. All the Bush bashers on here, naw, I wasn't thrilled and am not thrilled about being in Iraq, but at least Bush kept us safe since 09/11 by luring the cockroaches to one main place by the sacrifices of our brave troops over there in that god-forsaken place. Yes, it cost us blood and treasure and we have lost a lot, but the Bush strategy worked for keeping us safe on the homefront. Some day, if we're still around to have a history, he will be regarded as one of our greatest presidents, I do believe.

We're the Big Satan to most of the world because of Bush's policies. I believe Obama will change that and we'll actually have some allies again. Many countries will still be our enemies but we don't have to antagonize them by calling them the "Axis of Evil."

 

[JustChristian]

Pandering to Radical Islam to improve HIS image worldwide..

I wonder why he cares what every nation thinks of him.

Note to Obama: NATIONS HATE THE US. And you are not the Messiah to bring world piece..

Anyone thinking he can bring world peace has believed a lie, and is deluded...

Why do you and many others here have this messiah thing about Obama? Compared to Bush he's much, much better but not the messiah.

 

[JustChristian]

The two are not mutually exclusive. Just because he "kept us safe" doesn't mean he didn't on 9/11. Did Clinton not keep us safe the first WTC attack in 93, or does he get a pass for that? Is he not also commended for it not happening after that?

We can blame them or praise them. They get more of both than they deserve.

I don't agree with your statement. Bush did not keep us safe on 9/11. He did thereafter. Clinton did have responsibility for preventing the earlier attack on the WTC. I continue to go with Truman's statement. The buck stops here. Presidents need to take responsibility for what happens during their administration. hat applies to both sides of the aisle.

 

[rbell]

We're the Big Satan to most of the world because of Bush's policies. I believe Obama will change that and we'll actually have some allies again. Many countries will still be our enemies but we don't have to antagonize them by calling them the "Axis of Evil."

God forbid that we should call evil nations evil.

 

[StefanM]

God forbid that we should call evil nations evil.

Doesn't mean it's smart to do so. A member of your church might be a jerk, but it may not be in the pastor's best interest to call him such from the pulpit.

 

[Revmitchell]

Doesn't mean it's smart to do so.

But it is.

 

[StefanM]

But it is.

Can you describe for me some benefits of declaring certain nations to be in an "Axis of Evil"?

 

[Revmitchell]

Can you describe for me some benefits of declaring certain nations to be in an "Axis of Evil"?

They are not given a pass.

They are isolated by their actions.

They are given special recognition so as to place them on watch by all peace loving countries.


See simply trying to play nice with countries who leaders are evil never works. Ever.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I predict this thread will have people on both sides of the fence... and it will run many many pages without anyone changing their minds.....

Yup. I stay out of these.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

We're the Big Satan to most of the world because of Bush's policies. I believe Obama will change that and we'll actually have some allies again. Many countries will still be our enemies but we don't have to antagonize them by calling them the "Axis of Evil."

We were the great satan back when Carter was president. Not that I expect truth to matter to you.

 

[Revmitchell]

We're the Big Satan to most of the world because of Bush's policies.

Really? Name these "most" and their exact quotes?

 

[StefanM]

They are not given a pass.

They are isolated by their actions.

They are given special recognition so as to place them on watch by all peace loving countries.


See simply trying to play nice with countries who leaders are evil never works. Ever.

1) They weren't given a pass previously.

2) They are already isolated. The term doesn't change a thing.

3) Special reognition..maybe, but if they are already on a list of state sponsors of terrorism, they already have recognition.

I'm not suggesting playing nice. I'm suggesting avoiding unnecessary rhetoric. It's the "speak softly and carry a big stick" method. I think we need to place major pressure on countries like Iran and North Korea, but I don't think a label is going to make any difference.

 

[Revmitchell]

1) I think we need to place major pressure on countries like Iran and North Korea, but I don't think a label is going to make any difference.

Then why complain

 

[StefanM]

Then why complain

I don't think it will make a difference in terms of the effectiveness of our pressure, but I do think that it may have effects on international relations with other countries. It's best to keep our options open and keep our cards close to the vest.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I think we should stop sanctioning countries we don't like, it only leads to dead women & children.

One more point, Obama has been asked by Pakistan to stop the drone attacks. Think he'll comply, or is he just another "neocon" ?

 

[Revmitchell]

I don't think it will make a difference in terms of the effectiveness of our pressure, but I do think that it may have effects on international relations with other countries. It's best to keep our options open and keep our cards close to the vest.

What countries?