How Will Historians Judge George W. Bush Era?

[Shanet Clark]

http://www.huntingtonnews.net/editor/070807-clark-ed.html

[Tim Gratz]

It probably depends upon the ultimate result in Iraq.

How would histortians judge Churchhill if the Allies had lost WWII? Well, by golly, it would certainly be different people writing the History!

Hilary Clinton admits the US is safer now than it was immediately before 9/11.

[Shanet Clark]

You have chosen to ignore all posts from: Tim Gratz.

· View this post

· Un-ignore Tim Gratz

[Ron Ecker]

It will depend on when and how the Bush era ends. He could be in the White House for several more years. It's possible that we've seen nothing yet.

[Tim Gratz]

Ron, you are too paranoid. The only hope for more Bush years is if Jeb runs, and of course Jeb will only do so if there is a turn-around in his brother's approval ratings.

Don't worry, Ron, there will be an election in 2008 that will probably pit Clinton-Obama against Republican candidates I cannot yet prognosticate (nor will I attempt to prognosticate the winner at this early date).

Edited August 8, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Ron Ecker]

I still remember the immortal words of General Tommy Franks, around the time of his retirement. He said that the next 9/11-style attack will bring martial law.

If I'm paranoid, then so is General Franks. I don't think he was just whistling Dixie.

[Tim Gratz]

But Bush has successfully prevented any more 9/11 attacks in this country!!

From an article by Mark Goldblatt in "The American Spectator":

Realistically, however, we shouldn't take too much comfort in our enemy's recent failure rate...because right now their first stringers are tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan. This, of course, is what President Bush means when he insists we're fighting the war against Islamic terror "over there" so that we don't have to fight it back here -- though war critics cannot seem to fathom this point. Getting an operation like September 11th off the ground entails recruiting, training and supplying "martyrs" who are shrewd enough to carry out the mission yet wild-eyed enough never to question the morality of murdering thousands of civilians. In short, it requires large sums of cash.

Money, after all, is the ultimate weapon of mass destruction -- the one WMD Saddam indisputably had stockpiled before the American invasion of 2003. Self-starters, even well-heeled ones like the doctors who botched the London and Glasgow jobs, cannot, as a rule, shell out the funds necessary to pull off a major attack. For that, you need the kind of operating budgets that usually come from global organizations like al Qaeda or from sovereign governments like Iran or Syria.

But al Qaeda, Iran and Syria, in case you haven't noticed, are currently too preoccupied with what's going on the Middle East to divert much of their terrorist cash elsewhere. That equation will change, of course, if America pulls out of Iraq prematurely. Then they'll be free to start fielding their varsity teams over here.

Count on it.

I keep hoping that some of you will take off your ideological blinders long enough to allow your intelligence to prevail. Why have there been no more terrorist incidents in this country? Think, boys and girls!

[Ron Ecker]

The notion that there have been no terrorist attacks in the U.S. because the terrorists are too busy fighting us in Iraq is absolutely ridiculous. We are mainly fighting insurgents in Iraq. It's a civil war. They are blowing up each other, not just Americans.

[Tim Gratz]

It is of course unfortunate that the Islasmic nuts (which is not to imply that all adherents of that religion are nuts) are blowing up innocent people. It may not be nice to say or even think but I am glad it is NOT happening in this country.

Ron, did you comprehend Goldblatt's point about the money?

[Ron Ecker]

Ron, did you comprehend Goldblatt's point about the money?

Yes, he says they can't spend money on attacking the U.S. because their "varsity team" is too preoccupied with what's going on in Iraq. Which I say is ridiculous.

[Tim Gratz]

And I say we are either doing something right or we are mighty blessed or mighty lucky (take your pick).

[Ron Ecker]

And I say we are either doing something right or we are mighty blessed or mighty lucky (take your pick).

We are "doing something right" in Iraq, eh? Okay.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Shanet, as you ask. I think he should be judged not by historians, but rather a war crimes tribunal. Along with bomber Blair.

[Tim Gratz]

Peter wrote:

"The laws are all in place for martial law, repeal of elections and more/worse...it takes only a signiture [sic] from 'W' and if COG was never recinded [sic] after 9-1-1 it may be a fait accompli we havn't[sic] yet been told about."

Peter, please cite a law that authorizes the "repeal of elections". I'd sure like to hear about THAT one!

And, Peter, I do sleep well BECAUSE the GB Administration is diligent in its anti-terrorism efforts.

Edited August 8, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

A multiple choice question.

All ya need to do is post your best estimate whether the answer is a, b, c or d:

The question posed is:

There have been no more terrorist attacks in the United States since 9/11/2007 because:

The suggested possible answers are:

a) The terrorists have now renounced terrorism.

The terrorists are still terrorists but now they love us.

c) We've just been mighty darn lucky!

d) The Bush anti-terrorism efforts are working.

If your answer differs from any of the above, please post your explanation.