Bush Administration's Job
 

What does everyone think of Bushe's job on the war on terror?

There have not been any terrorist attacks on the US since September 11, 2001, so in my estimation he is doing a good job.

That depends on what 'War on Terror' presupposes. If the war was intended to kick certain specific terrorists out of certain specific places and take down Saddam along with them, then it still hasn't reached it's goal completely though is part-way there. If it was intended to reduce the number of terrorists and anti-American elements in the world, then it resoundlingly flopped and needs to be completely redirected. :hmm:

I do believe America became safer on some counts, no doubt, but the war created completely new liabilities and destabilized the situation in the middle east more severely than the Bush administration is willing to admit.

This thread should be interesting :hmm:
Here's a spanner; isn't the concept of a "war on terror" a bit of a stretch?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/...997397,00.html
Just an idea.

I have a rock in my pocket that protects me from tigers

the sept 11 attacks you have to admit were evil, that was crossing the line. i heard from my cousin shes in university and when she went down to new york on a university field trip (shes into international politics) she visited the world trade center gorund zero, and what was very odd she said when she got there there was a errie feeling in the air and she had cold shivers down her spine, her friends also said the same thing, they knew that this place is a grave of close to 3000 people, she was freaked out by it and they left after about 5 min walking around.


Bush aint doing a good job, sure there havent been terror attacks agaisnt US soil but there ave been terror attacks in madrid and london and tokyo (sarin gas attack), hes striing up problems with iran and north korea.

If I could only relate to you in words what an awful job this administration is doing with the GWOT I would, but in the interests of my blood pressure I will suffice to say he has passed Warren G. Harding in my book as worst President of all time.:nope:

110% on the dot!!:up:

I voted "not acceptable" but would have preferred an option for "mediocre" or "okay."

We all agree that no terrorist attacks have taken place, but fears about terrorism are still prominent. And after all, isn't the point of terrorism to terrorize?

I think this has in part been agitated by the administration through a lack of candidacy, but also through the public's tendancy to interpret successes (e.g. terror suspect arrests) as failures. The more security the public gets, the more they want, and the more alarmed they are at the fact that there are still terrorists operating in the West. This is the "homeland security dilemma."

An interesting paper on this written by a former professor of mine is here.

Unless you're talking about the first Bush, the Sarin attacks were before GWB's time.


I voted "Yes, doing an acceptable job."

He hasn't done more than his obligation.

Thanks For the Feedback Guys
 

Thanks for all the feedback. I expect this thread to grow as there is a lot of interest in this subject in the world today. Thanks again all. :up:

Just twenty-two (22) more months and the next president will be able to blame President Bush for everything ...

American armed forces are in Iraq and Afganistan and we have Iran surrounded.

The enemy has attacked Spain and India and they look like fools in England and we are suppose to be afraid ...

President Bush is doing better than what Gore or Kerry would've done ... :yep:

Bush is doing a better job than Gore or Kerry wouldve done
 

Right on 100%

Crazy libs.... lol
 

Crazy libs.... lol

Um, conjecture anyone?