Thursday, April 24, 2008
President Bush
Although I am not happy with the level of socialism promised to us at the 2004 Republican Convention (and too much of which has been enacted), there is one very good thing about our President. In the last 6+ years there have been no more terrorist attacks within our borders. And that's something that couldn't have been achieved by his opponent. Will we have the same level of security after November?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Oh psh- that's like saying the new pool in your backyard keeps away tigers.
ReplyDelete...well, have you seen any tigers since you moved in? ;)
How many massive terrorist attacks were there before Bush? None under Clinton- and yet we had 9-11 when Bush was president. But that argument is a logical fallacy too.
9-11 was (by estimates) years in the planning- I've yet to see proof that the trillions of dollars we've spent, all the civil liberties that have been violated, and our flagrant disregard for the constitution has yet to have stopped any terrorist attacks.
You really think that there have been no attempts, no plans, since 9/11?
ReplyDeleteI don't see proof of any.
ReplyDeleteAnd if there have been, why should we assume there have been any more, or any less, then before Bush instituted Homeland Security and everything else?
Speculation is fine and all- but it's just that- speculation.
I don't know whether you'd call it proof or not. But there have been several times when there were threats that didn't pan out because they were interrupted, or when people were caught with plans in the works. Now, some Americans believe those are just stories made up to justify the Homeland Security Act. And yet, there are people out there in the world who want to blow us up and bring down American society. I don't think they're content with the relative failure of what was supposed to have happened on 9/11, and I don't think they've given up on trying for more.
ReplyDelete"Our failures are known, our successes are not."
ReplyDeleteIt's a movie quote from a CIA film, but I think it's pretty accurate. When everything is going fine, when we're the safest (and generally when people are most unhappy with the government), that's when these organizations (CIA, NSA, Homeland Security) are doing their jobs.
Of course, it's pointed out then: but there's no proof of that!
Exactly. If there were "proof" of it, they wouldn't be doing their jobs.
That doesn't mean that there isn't evidence. There's definitely evidence. But there's not really supposed to be proof. That's not how those organizations work. And contrary to popular opinion, we don't really need to know every single little detail of what goes on in these organizations, either. They keep us safe, I'm happy with that.
And as much as I don't like Bush's socialism, I have to say that I agree with Susan - I think he has definitely helped out these organizations in ways that Kerry never would have, and that has most definitely kept us safe.
I'm also unwilling to accept the propaganda that so many of the faults in our country right now have Bush to blame, but that none of the successes are from him also. If he gets to be blamed for everything that goes wrong, then he ought to be commended for those things that go right.
Maybe. You say you think President Bush has helped out these organizations more than Senator Kerry could have. I disagree- I think Kerry could have done as well of a job.
ReplyDeleteWithout any proof- it's all just our own vague opinions. And then, which political party we support becomes based not on facts- but upon our own feelings (at any given moment). ::shrugs:: Inevitable perhaps- but not right either.
Politics in this country will never change unless people start discussing actual issues- and not vague fluff words.
I don't think President Bush should be blamed for everything that goes wrong in this country- but neither should every success be attributed to him. Just because one is happening doesn't mean we should have a knee jerk reaction the other way.
Whether we should know the fine details of what the organizations do is debatable. But we should have a general idea of what they're doing- and if people are arrested- they should have trials the public knows about (It's a constitutional right).
Saying they don't need to tell us anything, that the things they do are self-justifying, and that we trust them without proof is dangerous. It's the same kind of propaganda put out by Hitler's Gestapo and Stalin's secret police.
Government needs to be accountable to its citizens. At least, an elected government faithful to the constitution needs to be.
Although I am not one to think "just trust the government," I do see a difficult problem with regard to security. If the government is answerable to the public, they end up giving away all secrets to the enemy too. During WWII, many things were on a need-to-know basis, and the saying was "Loose lips sink ships." I don't know how the government can provide security at the same time it must let us all know what it's up to. There must be a line there where there can be a proper balance between the two, but I don't know what it is.
ReplyDelete