I think we all agree

[LoneLaugher]

The US should not try to police the world and should not engage in nation building. We should not enter foreign conflicts unless the USA or its people have been physically attacked.

Comments-------------------

Common sense. You'll find many who agree. Those who disagree..........should draw your attention.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Are you trying to channel RDean here?
Are you happy to see thousands dead in NYC, with people jumping out of skyscrapers in total desperation?

I did not say we should not have hit back after 9/11. We should have and did, the problem is that we did not do it smartly.

I am not saying that we should sit on our asses when threatened, we just have no business trying to inject our troops to settle regional conflicts (viet nam, kosovo, etc) when there is no threat to the USA

Missing the point. We can't always predict when there will be a threat or not. No one thought there would be any consequences to abandoning Afghanistan. Just because the planes aren't flying into your skyscrapers at that moment doesnt mean there isnt a threat just ahead.

This nation was founded on the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Preemptive warmongering is unjustifiable because innocent people will die that have nothing whatsoever to do with any alleged "threat". Such was the case in Iraq. There was no any threat at all. There was no imminent danger either. The entire bogus "threat" was a fabrication of the Bush Administration and Congress and the American people were deliberately deceived by the warmongers.

 

[The Rabbi]

I did not say we should not have hit back after 9/11. We should have and did, the problem is that we did not do it smartly.

I am not saying that we should sit on our asses when threatened, we just have no business trying to inject our troops to settle regional conflicts (viet nam, kosovo, etc) when there is no threat to the USA

Missing the point. We can't always predict when there will be a threat or not. No one thought there would be any consequences to abandoning Afghanistan. Just because the planes aren't flying into your skyscrapers at that moment doesnt mean there isnt a threat just ahead.

This nation was founded on the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Preemptive warmongering is unjustifiable because innocent people will die that have nothing whatsoever to do with any alleged "threat". Such was the case in Iraq. There was no any threat at all. There was no imminent danger either. The entire bogus "threat" was a fabrication of the Bush Administration and Congress and the American people were deliberately deceived by the warmongers.

Innocent until proven guilty is applicable to the criminal justice system. It has no application in foreign policy.
Iraq was a state supporter of terrorism, a violator of sanctions and treaties, and a threat to stability in the middle east. It was exactly the right move to go in.
Somalia was a half assed joke of a mission. Kosova was a shitty mission. The US engages in lots of little wars, and always has.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Missing the point. We can't always predict when there will be a threat or not. No one thought there would be any consequences to abandoning Afghanistan. Just because the planes aren't flying into your skyscrapers at that moment doesnt mean there isnt a threat just ahead.

This nation was founded on the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Preemptive warmongering is unjustifiable because innocent people will die that have nothing whatsoever to do with any alleged "threat". Such was the case in Iraq. There was no any threat at all. There was no imminent danger either. The entire bogus "threat" was a fabrication of the Bush Administration and Congress and the American people were deliberately deceived by the warmongers.

Innocent until proven guilty is applicable to the criminal justice system. It has no application in foreign policy.
Iraq was a state supporter of terrorism, a violator of sanctions and treaties, and a threat to stability in the middle east. It was exactly the right move to go in.
Somalia was a half assed joke of a mission. Kosova was a shitty mission. The US engages in lots of little wars, and always has.

You defend lying to Congress and deceiving the American people. You defend the deaths and dismemberment of thousands of US troops based upon a callous deception of the citizens of this nation. That says volumes about you!

 

[The Rabbi]

This nation was founded on the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Preemptive warmongering is unjustifiable because innocent people will die that have nothing whatsoever to do with any alleged "threat". Such was the case in Iraq. There was no any threat at all. There was no imminent danger either. The entire bogus "threat" was a fabrication of the Bush Administration and Congress and the American people were deliberately deceived by the warmongers.

Innocent until proven guilty is applicable to the criminal justice system. It has no application in foreign policy.
Iraq was a state supporter of terrorism, a violator of sanctions and treaties, and a threat to stability in the middle east. It was exactly the right move to go in.
Somalia was a half assed joke of a mission. Kosova was a shitty mission. The US engages in lots of little wars, and always has.

You defend lying to Congress and deceiving the American people. You defend the deaths and dismemberment of thousands of US troops based upon a callous deception of the citizens of this nation. That says volumes about you!

You deflect when challenged and have no idea what you're talking about.
That says volumes about you!

 

[SAYIT]

Afghanistan was actually executed well in the beginning but then botched when the focus shifted to Iraq. The war in Afghanistan should have been concluded and all troops withdrawn before the needless war in Iraq. History tells us that Afghanistan is where empires go to die. We should have heeded that lesson by taking down ALQ and then getting out with the implicit threat that we would come right back again if they tried anything again.

That's why Obama fucked up when he changed focus to Afghanistan?
Bush's strategy was right both places. Large military force in Iraq to unseat Saddam and bring order. Small elite force to help the Northern Alliance unseat the Taliban.

Obama inherited two quagmires from Bush and there were no good options. The advice of the military for a surge in Afghanistan was a mistake but Obama was smart enough to set benchmarks and stick to them. They weren't achieved so he did what he should have done originally and started the drawdown and withdrawal process. Obama was also smart enough not to get sucked into Iran, Libya and Syria. Overall Obama has a better track record than Bush when it comes to wars.

I just had this conversation this morn. It is true Obama was dealt a tough hand but Bush was dealt 9/11 just months into his first term. Try having that dumped on you. At least Obama knew what he was getting.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

So you are happy seeing our kids brought home missing arms and legs or in body bags? You think we should try to inject our since of values on the rest of the world and sacrifice our young to make that happen?

you are correct that we do not all agree, very correct !

I AM correct that we do not all agree. Thank God I am right and thank God you are wrong.

And your rhetorical questions are plodding, ignorant, childish, stupid and sophomoric.

NOBODY that I know of relishes war. NOBODY that I know of relishes the injuries that are inflicted by the ravages of war, or the deaths and the misery and the mourning.

Are you a complete ******* idiot?

What I was objecting to was YOUR initial sophistry to the effect that we are (or even ought to be) in agreement that "we" should never go to war until and unless we are attacked.

Such short-sighted "thinking" has no place in the real world which is capable of being a very dangerous place that provides little lead time and often no notice.

But sometimes we do have the good fortune of knowing in advance that an attack is planned or about to begin. We are not obligated to wait (and it would be fool-hearty to wait) until AFTER their first blows land on us before we act.

So, no.

We are NOT in agreement.

You are wrong. And your "advice" is most unwise.

Your ignorance is showing, better pull your panties up. Hurling insults is an obvious means of admitting that you are wrong or are incapable of understanding the issue.


these things are NOT complicated, they are SIMPLE. Politicians make them complicated as they try to deceive us.

You, my ignorant friend are wrong, I am right.


BTW, do you know the difference between 'threatened' and 'attacked' ?

A silly little twit like you should heed your own advice.

No.

You are clearly wrong.

There are times when it is urgent and even imperative to move against an opponent BEFORE he can lay you out.

And, by the way, if you think the only basis to strike an enemy is when he has first struck you, then you are not just ignorant and foolish, but willfully blind. If we had a chance to strike Japan before Pearl Harbor and thereby prevent that attack, we would have been remiss not to try to do so.

You (like many a pathetic liberal) tend toward the utopian. You are truly just a very silly little child.

 

[SAYIT]

I think you are mistaken, especially as to the bolded portion. In reality, we do NOT "all agree."

So you are happy seeing our kids brought home missing arms and legs or in body bags? You think we should try to inject our since of values on the rest of the world and sacrifice our young to make that happen?

you are correct that we do not all agree, very correct !

I AM correct that we do not all agree. Thank God I am right and thank God you are wrong.

And your rhetorical questions are plodding, ignorant, childish, stupid and sophomoric.

NOBODY that I know of relishes war. NOBODY that I know of relishes the injuries that are inflicted by the ravages of war, or the deaths and the misery and the mourning.

Are you a complete ******* idiot?

What I was objecting to was YOUR initial sophistry to the effect that we are (or even ought to be) in agreement that "we" should never go to war until and unless we are attacked.

Such short-sighted "thinking" has no place in the real world which is capable of being a very dangerous place that provides little lead time and often no notice.

But sometimes we do have the good fortune of knowing in advance that an attack is planned or about to begin. We are not obligated to wait (and it would be fool-hearty to wait) until AFTER their first blows land on us before we act.

So, no.

We are NOT in agreement.

You are wrong. And your "advice" is most unwise.

A rational assessment but we do all seem to be in agreement that NOBODY relishes the losses that are inflicted by the ravages of war, or the deaths and the misery and the mourning.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

So you are happy seeing our kids brought home missing arms and legs or in body bags? You think we should try to inject our since of values on the rest of the world and sacrifice our young to make that happen?

you are correct that we do not all agree, very correct !

I AM correct that we do not all agree. Thank God I am right and thank God you are wrong.

And your rhetorical questions are plodding, ignorant, childish, stupid and sophomoric.

NOBODY that I know of relishes war. NOBODY that I know of relishes the injuries that are inflicted by the ravages of war, or the deaths and the misery and the mourning.

Are you a complete ******* idiot?

What I was objecting to was YOUR initial sophistry to the effect that we are (or even ought to be) in agreement that "we" should never go to war until and unless we are attacked.

Such short-sighted "thinking" has no place in the real world which is capable of being a very dangerous place that provides little lead time and often no notice.

But sometimes we do have the good fortune of knowing in advance that an attack is planned or about to begin. We are not obligated to wait (and it would be fool-hearty to wait) until AFTER their first blows land on us before we act.

So, no.

We are NOT in agreement.

You are wrong. And your "advice" is most unwise.

A rational assessment but we do all seem to be in agreement that NOBODY relishes the losses that are inflicted by the ravages of war, or the deaths and the misery and the mourning.

It's not controversial to be kind of opposed to the ravages of war or death or misery and mourning. We can indeed all agree on that. IF that had been what the author of the OP had claimed, there wouldn't likely be any dispute.

 

[Dot Com]

In 11 recent years we've lost what--6,805? Faces of the Fallen - The Washington Post?

In 4 years in WWII, we lost 418,500 with a population of 1,300,000

My heart is broken,, too, that many more lost body parts and have conditions related to their injuries and experiences. And this government has proven itself not serious about taking care of them until Republicans got downright ugly about their neglect at the negligence of President Barack Obama.

NEGGED you pro-war drone!!!

Problems at the VA precede the current President & go way back @freedombecki . The last Repub Prez (from your state ) & his volunltary war, which consequently flooded the system, didn't help matters either Sugar Tits I should know, I served and have utilized the VA on various occassions. You serve? You are a partisan piece of shit. Seriously.

Thank you for your service to the people of the United States, Dot Com.

Thank you for your recognition but I'd appreciate it more if you would disassociate yourself from your previous brazenly partisan hack post

 

[SAYIT]

So you are happy seeing our kids brought home missing arms and legs or in body bags? You think we should try to inject our since of values on the rest of the world and sacrifice our young to make that happen?
you are correct that we do not all agree, very correct !

I AM correct that we do not all agree. Thank God I am right and thank God you are wrong...
NOBODY that I know of relishes war. NOBODY that I know of relishes the injuries that are inflicted by the ravages of war, or the deaths and the misery and the mourning.
Such short-sighted "thinking" has no place in the real world which is capable of being a very dangerous place that provides little lead time and often no notice.
But sometimes we do have the good fortune of knowing in advance that an attack is planned or about to begin. We are not obligated to wait (and it would be fool-hearty to wait) until AFTER their first blows land on us before we act.
So, no.
We are NOT in agreement.
You are wrong. And your "advice" is most unwise.

these things are NOT complicated, they are SIMPLE. Politicians make them complicated as they try to deceive us.
You, my ignorant friend are wrong, I am right.
BTW, do you know the difference between 'threatened' and 'attacked' ?

All the flaming aside (and removed), IM makes a valid point in that we must operate in "the real world which is capable of being a very dangerous place that provides little lead time and often no notice." As such, preemptive actions may be required to short-circuit attacks on America or our interests which may have tragic results.
We can not allow our mistakes to paralyze us as sometimes a threat must be dealt with as though the attack is pending ... because sometimes it is.

 

[Dot Com]

The US should not try to police the world and should not engage in nation building. We should not enter foreign conflicts unless the USA or its people have been physically attacked.

Comments-------------------

I wish Democrats who agree with you would realize that what you said is the best reason to find an alternative to Hillary Clinton in 2016.

yep, she's a corporate democrat & prolly wouldn't hesitate to start wars for profit like Bush II did.

Facts are pesky things!

Congress was party to the invasion of Afghanistan and the majority to the population was behind it because it was a direct strike against those that attacked on 9/11. The initial execution was done properly.

Everything went downhill after the Bush administration started lying to Congress and the American people about Iraq and started a deliberate campaign of disinformation. The facts all point to the single cause of that unnecessary war, which is the point of your OP, as being what was coming from the Whitehouse.

Your entire OP falls apart if you cannot admit to the truth about the illegal and unnecessary invasion of Iraq.

No, I am not going to debate the FACTS because they stand on their own merits. The Bush Administration lied to Congress and the American people in order to illegally invade Iraq. Everything else is secondary to that. If you cannot be honest enough to admit to the FACTS then you have just destroyed your OP position.

^ that

Too bad freedombecki conveniently logged-off so that she doesn't have to witness the facts.

Huh? I am caring for a dementia victim, Dottie. I can't always be here. Some things are more demanding than hanging around here.

The facts have been discussed here that the Bush administration was encouraged by people from both left and right aisles to eliminate the terrorist camps in Afghanistan. I know this, because I was a scholar of Madeline Albright's notes on the War Crimes of Saddam Hussein at her online State Department page. And Saddam Hussein himself told his Arab brothers in the oil cartel that he was close to making his first atomic bomb, plus he had used biochemical weapons on tens o thousands of Iraqis in his own country as well as on Iran militia in his skirmish with them.

A better decision was never made in going to war with Iraq, and Sandi Berger was convicted of stealing information that showed Bill Clinton knew about the goings on in Iraq and did nothing about it.

You do remember Sandi Berger getting his little wrist slap from the Bush Justice Department, do you not for his thievery? He tried, but failed to whitewash Clinton's omissions. Bush didn't make a big issue of the Clinton lies and obfuscations. He dealt with the moment and did what he could about it.

I'm proud of Preident George W. Bush for doing the right thing at the right time and not whimpering about how it was all his predecessor's fault, and he didn't hide behind his desk, either. And he had zero help from the press, like the critical folks of CNN and MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and NBC. All of them were ex-officio members of the Clinton Spin Room, and they used everything they had (which was not very much) to slam Bush all over the public arena if he so much as sneezed in a room full of pepper.

*sigh*

4,000+ casualties, 10's of 1000's of permanently maimed & wounded, & $4TRILLION of BORROWED taxdollars later you still stand behind that "war-for-profit"? There is no hope for you and your partisan blinders. They must be stapled permanently to your temples.

 

[Peach]

The US should not try to police the world and should not engage in nation building. We should not enter foreign conflicts unless the USA or its people have been physically attacked.

Comments-------------------

I wish Democrats who agree with you would realize that what you said is the best reason to find an alternative to Hillary Clinton in 2016.

yep, she's a corporate democrat & prolly wouldn't hesitate to start wars for profit like Bush II did.

^ that

Too bad freedombecki conveniently logged-off so that she doesn't have to witness the facts.

Huh? I am caring for a dementia victim, Dottie. I can't always be here. Some things are more demanding than hanging around here.

The facts have been discussed here that the Bush administration was encouraged by people from both left and right aisles to eliminate the terrorist camps in Afghanistan. I know this, because I was a scholar of Madeline Albright's notes on the War Crimes of Saddam Hussein at her online State Department page. And Saddam Hussein himself told his Arab brothers in the oil cartel that he was close to making his first atomic bomb, plus he had used biochemical weapons on tens o thousands of Iraqis in his own country as well as on Iran militia in his skirmish with them.

A better decision was never made in going to war with Iraq, and Sandi Berger was convicted of stealing information that showed Bill Clinton knew about the goings on in Iraq and did nothing about it.

You do remember Sandi Berger getting his little wrist slap from the Bush Justice Department, do you not for his thievery? He tried, but failed to whitewash Clinton's omissions. Bush didn't make a big issue of the Clinton lies and obfuscations. He dealt with the moment and did what he could about it.

I'm proud of Preident George W. Bush for doing the right thing at the right time and not whimpering about how it was all his predecessor's fault, and he didn't hide behind his desk, either. And he had zero help from the press, like the critical folks of CNN and MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and NBC. All of them were ex-officio members of the Clinton Spin Room, and they used everything they had (which was not very much) to slam Bush all over the public arena if he so much as sneezed in a room full of pepper.

*sigh*

4,000+ casualties, 10's of 1000's of permanently maimed & wounded, & $4TRILLION of BORROWED taxdollars later you still stand behind that "war-for-profit"? There is no hope for you and your partisan blinders. They must be stapled permanently to your temples.

An additional 51,000 with injuries that require continuing care is significant in just 12 years.

 

[Dot Com]

I did not say we should not have hit back after 9/11. We should have and did, the problem is that we did not do it smartly.

I am not saying that we should sit on our asses when threatened, we just have no business trying to inject our troops to settle regional conflicts (viet nam, kosovo, etc) when there is no threat to the USA

Missing the point. We can't always predict when there will be a threat or not. No one thought there would be any consequences to abandoning Afghanistan. Just because the planes aren't flying into your skyscrapers at that moment doesnt mean there isnt a threat just ahead.

This nation was founded on the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Preemptive warmongering is unjustifiable because innocent people will die that have nothing whatsoever to do with any alleged "threat". Such was the case in Iraq. There was no any threat at all. There was no imminent danger either. The entire bogus "threat" was a fabrication of the Bush Administration and Congress and the American people were deliberately deceived by the warmongers.

Repubs must think we have short memories

 

[Dot Com]

That's why Obama fucked up when he changed focus to Afghanistan?
Bush's strategy was right both places. Large military force in Iraq to unseat Saddam and bring order. Small elite force to help the Northern Alliance unseat the Taliban.

Obama inherited two quagmires from Bush and there were no good options. The advice of the military for a surge in Afghanistan was a mistake but Obama was smart enough to set benchmarks and stick to them. They weren't achieved so he did what he should have done originally and started the drawdown and withdrawal process. Obama was also smart enough not to get sucked into Iran, Libya and Syria. Overall Obama has a better track record than Bush when it comes to wars.

I just had this conversation this morn. It is true Obama was dealt a tough hand but Bush was dealt 9/11 just 100 days into his first term. Try having that dumped on you. At least Obama knew what he was getting.

Obama was basically given a turd sandwich by the former Repub occupant of the WH: Two decade+, unfinished & unpaid-for wars & an economy in the toilet due, in large part to, the Bush II not putting war costs in the budget & giving tax cuts to people who didn't need or ask for them. Obama even condemned the Iraq fiasco when he was a senator. Its in the record.

 

[SAYIT]

I know I'm flipping that some how some way we are getting involved in the world police stuff in the Ukraine. I'm spitting bullets over this.

Honestly If there is a true genocide going down I have no problem with any of us jumping in and laying down a smackdown quick hard and dirty.

But why are we getting involved over bitchy moments? I'm not getting this.

We have no business in Ukraine or Crimea. If those people vote to rejoin Russia, its none of our fricken business. If Russia takes them by force, let the chips fall where they may. We are not the world's police force. Unless there is a theat or attack on US interests, then we need to stay the **** out of it.

So you ARE ok with the US reacting to a threat as opposed to waiting for an actual attack.
Just a few posts ago you asked IM if he was aware of the diff between the two as if a threat must not be defended. I realize it's a slippery slope fraught with risks but we need to keep our options open and have the courage to act.

 

[SAYIT]

I'll give myself up. I was thrilled when we all went into Afghanistan. I yes a conservative have been a womans right's activist in the ME for a long time and at war on the net with the Taliban since the 90's.

I thought we could rebuild. I thought we could change things. I believed.

Oh I have been so sadly mistaken. And my heart is broken that we lost so many good young men and women fighting such a losing battle.

All for a dream that in the end will never come true.

In 11 recent years we've lost what--6,805? Faces of the Fallen - The Washington Post?

In 4 years in WWII, we lost 418,500 with a population of 1,300,000

My heart is broken,, too, that many more lost body parts and have conditions related to their injuries and experiences. And this government has proven itself not serious about taking care of them until Republicans got downright ugly about their neglect at the negligence of President Barack Obama.

NEGGED you pro-war drone!!!

Problems at the VA precede the current President & go way back [MENTION=29697]freedombecki[/MENTION] . The last Repub Prez (from your state ) & his volunltary war, which consequently flooded the system, didn't help matters either Sugar Tits I should know, I served and have utilized the VA on various occassions. You serve? You are a partisan piece of shit. Seriously.

The irony of you referring to anyone as "a partisan piece of shit" is surely lost on you but probably not on anyone else. Carry on, Princess.

 

[tinydancer]

The US should not try to police the world and should not engage in nation building. We should not enter foreign conflicts unless the USA or its people have been physically attacked.

Comments-------------------

I wish Democrats who agree with you would realize that what you said is the best reason to find an alternative to Hillary Clinton in 2016.

yep, she's a corporate democrat & prolly wouldn't hesitate to start wars for profit like Bush II did.

^ that

Too bad freedombecki conveniently logged-off so that she doesn't have to witness the facts.

Huh? I am caring for a dementia victim, Dottie. I can't always be here. Some things are more demanding than hanging around here.

The facts have been discussed here that the Bush administration was encouraged by people from both left and right aisles to eliminate the terrorist camps in Afghanistan. I know this, because I was a scholar of Madeline Albright's notes on the War Crimes of Saddam Hussein at her online State Department page. And Saddam Hussein himself told his Arab brothers in the oil cartel that he was close to making his first atomic bomb, plus he had used biochemical weapons on tens o thousands of Iraqis in his own country as well as on Iran militia in his skirmish with them.

A better decision was never made in going to war with Iraq, and Sandi Berger was convicted of stealing information that showed Bill Clinton knew about the goings on in Iraq and did nothing about it.

You do remember Sandi Berger getting his little wrist slap from the Bush Justice Department, do you not for his thievery? He tried, but failed to whitewash Clinton's omissions. Bush didn't make a big issue of the Clinton lies and obfuscations. He dealt with the moment and did what he could about it.

I'm proud of Preident George W. Bush for doing the right thing at the right time and not whimpering about how it was all his predecessor's fault, and he didn't hide behind his desk, either. And he had zero help from the press, like the critical folks of CNN and MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and NBC. All of them were ex-officio members of the Clinton Spin Room, and they used everything they had (which was not very much) to slam Bush all over the public arena if he so much as sneezed in a room full of pepper.

*sigh*

4,000+ casualties, 10's of 1000's of permanently maimed & wounded, & $4TRILLION of BORROWED taxdollars later you still stand behind that "war-for-profit"? There is no hope for you and your partisan blinders. They must be stapled permanently to your temples.

War for profit?

Do it and I will take you on. Meet me in a clean room. You lay down the line and I will take you on.

 

[The Rabbi]

That's why Obama fucked up when he changed focus to Afghanistan?
Bush's strategy was right both places. Large military force in Iraq to unseat Saddam and bring order. Small elite force to help the Northern Alliance unseat the Taliban.

Obama inherited two quagmires from Bush and there were no good options. The advice of the military for a surge in Afghanistan was a mistake but Obama was smart enough to set benchmarks and stick to them. They weren't achieved so he did what he should have done originally and started the drawdown and withdrawal process. Obama was also smart enough not to get sucked into Iran, Libya and Syria. Overall Obama has a better track record than Bush when it comes to wars.

I just had this conversation this morn. It is true Obama was dealt a tough hand but Bush was dealt 9/11 just 100 days into his first term. Try having that dumped on you. At least Obama knew what he was getting.

It is bullshit that obama inherited two quagmires. More examples of Leftists making shit up.
Iraq had been conquered, they had staged two elections, all that needed to be done was a status of forces agreement. And Obama fucked that up.
Afghanistan was tougher. But that was the war Obama called the good war. It was not the generals who pushed for a surge but Obama. He then ignored most of their advice and set on a plan that was all but guaranteed to fail. And fail it did. Obama blew blood and treasure in Afghanistan with absolutely nothing to show for it. The Taliban will be back in power within 24 months of our leaving. The sub 10k troops left will do nothing to prevent that.

The rest of Obama's foreign policy is a total train wreck. There is no country in the world where we have better relations than when Obama took office.

 

[Nyvin]

I just had this conversation this morn. It is true Obama was dealt a tough hand but Bush was dealt 9/11 just 100 days into his first term. Try having that dumped on you. At least Obama knew what he was getting.

???

September 11th is easily 250 days into the year, lol

btw, Bush benefited from 9/11 tremendously, he had the highest presidential approval ratings almost immediately after it, and it was 9/11 that largely allowed him to invade Iraq like he wanted to.