Quote:
|
Originally Posted by scandium
This often repeated but rarely challenged assertion blows my mind. The largest attack on U.S. soil since Pearle Harbour occured on Bush's watch, the guy behind it remains at large, and Bush has initiated two nation-building style wars to what end? What have they accomplished for the 2,500+ lives lost and $1 trillion+ price tag?
|
The seeds for 9/11 come from the Clinton Administration. We had 5 terror attacks under Bill Clinton including the first WTC attack, and Bill Clinton's response was to sit on his hands. No thanks. Under Mr. Bush, we have changed two regimes that supported international terrorists. Many on the left and right recommended many times we do it. Yes it has cost lives and treasure and it's a shame. But unless we confront this stuff, it will only grow and the costs won't ever stop in blood and treasure.
Quote:
And in such a climate, where national security is the issue, what makes Bush the best qualified to be the man in charge? The (R) attached to his name, or the last name "Bush"? Seriously, look at the man's bio and point out what about it makes him more qualified than anyone else:
- he was a legacy student (ie: affirmative action for the rich) at Yale and graduated with a 'C' average before going on to Harvard and getting an M.B.A.
- he did a brief stint in the TANG during the Vietnam war where he never saw combat and never advanced beyond the rank of 2nd Lt;
- he ran for Congress and lost;
- he started an oil company that never found any oil;
- he served briefly with the Carlyle Group, likely a position handed to him through his daddy's influence (who was a member of its board of directors);
- he bought into the Texas Rangers and traded Sammy Sosa;
- he served as Governor of Texas. His only political office and the net of his public service career before becoming President.
What among that bio screams out at you that he is the best man for the job of running and protecting the country?
|
I don't think he is the best qualified to run the country. Not even close. But he was duly elected by the people. And he was the best option we had IMHO (and the American People's opinion for that matter) when compared to Gore (China sell-out) and Kerry (Indecisive, aloof, and you never knew where he stood on anything). Both of these two absolutely have no business being President of the USA. Your response to attack Bush's stats show the weakness of your premises. Personal attacks usually come from a lost argument.
Quote:
|
That was why I mentioned him: because it seems only the peons at the bottom like Graner are ever held accountable for their misconduct.
|
The Bush administration did not order the misconduct. The Bush administration pushed for convictions of those who did these actions. What the heck do you expect?