Bush's presidency

[Exterminator]

If they can strike anytime they want to, why don't they?

They don't need to; the last attack was hugely successful at getting us to abandon our so-called principles and our Constitution and at permanently altering our way of life.

There is no reason for them not to strike us if they can, unless they are afraid of the consequences.

Of course they're afraid of the consequences; are you saying they weren't before Bush took office?  It's when the benefits outweigh the consequences that they'll strike.

Same result, President Bush's actions have prevented attack on American soil for 7 years. Mr. Clinton received a security briefing specifically talking about terrorists using hijacked airplanes to attack the US. He did nothing. Where is his blame in 9/11?

Apparently Clinton did enough because it didn't happen while he was president.

Bush was also warned that terrorists were planning to use hijacked airplanes as weapons, he did nothing and they attacked on his watch.  He has the worst record of any president in the history of the country at preventing terrorist attacks, period.  Spin it anyway you'd like; doesn't change the facts.

[Ghost of Jaco]

Indeed, attempted attacks have been thwarted.
From the (apparently unread by some) article that I posted above:

"The decisions taken by Mr Bush in the immediate aftermath of [9/11] will be pored over by historians for the rest of our lifetimes. One thing they will doubtless conclude is that the measures he took to lock down America's borders, scrutinise travellers to and from the United States, eavesdrop upon terrorist suspects, work closely with international intelligence agencies and take the war to the enemy has foiled dozens, perhaps scores of would-be murderous attacks on America. There are Americans alive today who would not be if it had not been for the passing of the Patriot Act. There are 3,000 people who would have died in the August 2005 airline conspiracy if it had not been for the superb inter-agency co-operation demanded by Bush after 9/11." Emphasis added - GoJ

[Sandy Eggo]

Wasn't that the one that the English were actually responsible for thwarting?

[Ghost of Jaco]

I think so, Sandy, but the author give some attribution to Bush for demanding inter-agency cooperation.


Here are a few articles on thwarted terror attacks in the US since 9/11 for those interested:

U.S. Thwarts 19 Terrorist Attacks Against America Since 9/11   http://www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandDefense/bg2085.cfm

Thwarted Terrorist Plots Since Sept. 11 Attacks  http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=1599331

20 Terrorist Plots Thwarted Since 9/11  http://thinkingpoints.thengia.org/2008/09/25/20-terrorist-plots-thwarted-since-911.aspx

[Exterminator]

Wasn't that the one that the English were actually responsible for thwarting?

Yes and it was in 2006, not 2005 but Robert's work is apparently fraught with such errors and inconsistencies.  He is, however, typical of the sort of people with whom Bush surrounds himself...if you don't think history will smile on you, find a 'historian' who write it the way you'd like it to be; the truth be damned!  It's hard to believe that he can see to type at all with his head so far up Bush's ass.

[Ghost of Jaco]

Attacking the messenger has not proved the message untrue.
Got anything with more substance?

[Exterminator]

Attacking the messenger has not proved the message untrue.
Got anything with more substance?

Your use of Anderw Roberts as a source to prove a point does not speak well of your integrity or objectivity.

[Henry Hawk]

GoJ, it is useless................not in a million years will these guys admit, to ANYTHING positive about President Bush....

I stand behind him, proudly for his fight on terror and keeping us safe......watch and see, IF and WHEN, we get attacked again, it will THEN be Bush's fault once again.........never, never, never will the liberals admit...

[Ghost of Jaco]

Your use of Anderw Roberts as a source to prove a point does not speak well of your integrity or objectivity.

You're not exactly a font of objectivity or integrity yourself, lol! But at least on the Globull Warming thread you tried to put some substance in your arguments. Try it again here.

So I must repeat:
Attacking the messenger has not proved the message untrue.
Which of his assertions do you disagree with and why?

[Exterminator]

You're not exactly a font of objectivity or integrity yourself, lol! But at least on the Globull Warming thread you tried to put some substance in your arguments. Try it again here.

So I must repeat:
Attacking the messenger has not proved the message untrue.
Which of his assertions do you disagree with and why?

That's like asking what it was that OJ said with which I disagree and why.  Roberts is a lying, history distorting, white supremacist who is a joke in the academic community.  If you think he's respectable, that makes you pretty much just like him.

[Ghost of Jaco]

GoJ, it is useless................not in a million years will these guys admit, to ANYTHING positive about President Bush....

I stand behind him, proudly for his fight on terror and keeping us safe......watch and see, IF and WHEN, we get attacked again, it will THEN be Bush's fault once again.........never, never, never will the liberals admit...

Oh I know that Henry. Humans are spiritual creatures. When you refuse to believe in a higher power of some kind, then something else will fill the spiritual void. It might be globull warming or it might be Bush Derangement Syndrome, but something will be there that must be defended "religiously". These people are as closed-minded about their beliefs as they claim Christians are of theirs. They seldom argue from substance, but instead brand "infidels"who (dare to) disagree with them as inferior in some manner.
 
Besides, I'm just amusing myself with him anyway. Watching him gnash his teeth at every disagreement, no matter how slight, is kinda fun!

Btw, Henry, doesn't he remind you of another poseur, er, poster on these boards?

[Exterminator]

Oh I know that Henry. Humans are spiritual creatures. When you refuse to believe in a higher power of some kind, then something else will fill the spiritual void. It might be globull warming or it might be Bush Derangement Syndrome, but something will be there that must be defended "religiously". These people are as closed-minded about their beliefs as they claim Christians are of theirs. They seldom argue from substance, but instead brand "infidels"who (dare to) disagree with them as inferior in some manner.

I can rephrase this for you...when you refuse to believe in fallacy, you refuse to believe in fallacy universally.
 

Btw, Henry, doesn't he remind you of another poseur, er, poster on these boards?

It must really gripe your ass, too, that Y's not only smarter than you but a much better musician as well.

[Ghost of Jaco]

I can rephrase this for you...when you refuse to believe in fallacy, you refuse to believe in fallacy universally.

That sounds profound, but it takes only a moment's reflection to realize it cannot be true. 

It must really gripe your ass, too, that Y's not only smarter than you but a much better musician as well.

Y? Who in the hell is talking about THAT idiot? I'm not, that's for sure!
As for being smarter than I...hmm...doubtful. How smart is it to spend massive amounts of time and bandwidth attacking something that you do not believe exists? Exactly as does dan foster. I don't believe in the tooth fairy, but I don't use a license plate with the image of a tooth and the word "stupd" on it as my avatar, and I don't waste time arguing with people who do believe in the tooth fairy. THAT is really "stupd", imo.

I didn't even know Y was a musician. He doesn't seem to have the temperament for it, imo. But hey, music's far too important to be left in the hands of professionals.  If you can arrange for he and I to "cut heads" as we musicians say, then I'll be there! We'll find out just who is the better musician!
Who knows, I just might learn something.
Oh, and where and when, exactly, did you see/hear me play? I might have been having an off night.

Ok, enough prattle! Back to the subject:

That's like asking what it was that OJ said with which I disagree and why.  Roberts is a lying, history distorting, white supremacist who is a joke in the academic community.  If you think he's respectable, that makes you pretty much just like him.

So, what I hear you saying in response to my question is that while you personally hate him, you couldn't find anything in his assessment of President Bush's term in office with which you disagree.

Ok, I'm good with that. You're entitled to your opinion, as is everyone else. Including the man you've never met who you apparently hate with a burning passion. As far as his "respectability", I have no idea. I just read the piece and considered it a worthy of discussion.

And, based on your debating skills (I mean, come on: trying to deflect by using an ad hominem attack on me? High-schoolish, at best), I'm guessing that you do not exactly run in academic circles, so I find your assertion that he is a "joke" in academic circles to be suspect.

[Exterminator]

As far as his "respectability", I have no idea.

Then perhaps you should do some research to prevent from appearing even more uninformed.  Would you quote William Calley to support a position about integrity on the battlefield?

And, based on your debating skills (I mean, come on: trying to deflect by using an ad hominem attack on me? High-schoolish, at best), I'm guessing that you do not exactly run in academic circles, so I find your assertion that he is a "joke" in academic circles to be suspect.

Again, learn about your source and come back and tell us what your impression is of his standing amongst his contemporaries.

[Ghost of Jaco]

Then perhaps you should do some research to prevent from appearing even more uninformed.  Would you quote William Calley to support a position about integrity on the battlefield?

As you sit there "basking in the warmth of your own regard" (to paraphrase Twain), you are guilty of a fundamental error in your debate: assuming facts not in evidence.
Very early in this thread I voiced my opinion that several Bush policies or decisions were in error.
I found the Roberts article while researching differing points of view on the Bush presidency vis-a-vis a future historical perspective, as I like to be informed of BOTH sides of a subject in a debate. I offered the Roberts article as "food for thought" (clearly labeled so, I might add), meaning I do not necessarily support this position but its arguments cause me to reflect further on the issue.
You assume that since I posted the article it means that I support the author's summary view. There are no facts in evidence on this thread that support that assumption; in fact there is evidence to the contrary. Perhaps you should do some research to improve your debating skills so you do not make such high-schoolish errors in logic in the future.

In a discussion of battlefield integrity (arguably an oxymoron, btw) Lt. Calley's view of the incident at My Lai might certainly offer "food for thought" on the subject, especially transcripts of his tape-recorded interviews with John Sack and his testimony at his court-martial under direct examination by George Latimer. If someone's position is that integrity on the battlefield, by its nature, is impossible, then they might cite the hapless Lt. Calley in support of that position. Someone arguing the opposing view might nonetheless quote Calley as "food for thought" in the discussion.

So far you have offered little (read: nothing) to rebut Robert's views except to impugn him as a source and me for offering his views as food for thought.
Let me try that in some sample debates:
Subject: Bill Clinton's Presidential Library.
Me, using your debating skills:
"Bill Clinton lied to the American people while in office, therefore everything he said or did is evil (despite his passing of, imo, an
excellent welfare reform package). His opinions are of no consequence and you are an idiot".

Subject: Rahm Emmanuel as Chief of Staff for Barrack Obama:
Me, using your debating skills:
"Barrack Obama claimed there were 57 States in one of his speeches, therefore he is obviously an uneducated moron who isn't qualified to be President of the United States (what a disappointment it will be for him when he finds out that his Socialist empire extends to only 50 United States rather than 57. I hope he wasn't including tax revenue from those other seven States in his stimulus package calculations). Therefore his opinions are of no consequence, and you are an idiot".

As one can clearly see, merely impugning a source because you disagree with it without offering any substantial rebuttal to that source is perhaps the weakest argument one can make in any debate. And it certainly doesn't speak well of the debating skills of the person using such a tactic, wouldn't you agree? Plus, resorting to ad hominem  attacks is the last bastion of losers (in a debate. I'm not implying that you are a loser in general).

So, do you have any rebuttal(s) of substance to Mr. Roberts view(s) to offer or should I tacitly assume that you agree with him?
A third option would be for you to claim that you wish to think further on the subject and perhaps do some more research before commenting.
See? I ain't so mean. I gave you an easy "out".


Non-sequitur: I really would like to know where and when you saw/heard me play music. Did you introduce yourself? Did we speak to each other?
Are you a musician? Have WE played together?!? Do you know if Y and I have ever shared a stage?

Cheers!