Obama Terrorism Policies: Was Bush Right?

Dante

On leave
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
52,462
Reaction score
3,366
Points
1,825
Location
On leave
Interesting take on things...


One will need broadband and be able to view video to use the link. I apologize. This is a debate by progressives about progressives on Bush's policies on terror and Obama's.
Bloggingheads: Was Bush Right?
Has President Obama just realized that George Bush was right on U.S. security?

Glenn Greenwald, left, of Salon.com and David Frum of FrumForum debate whether President Bush was right on national security.

Bloggingheads: Was Bush Right? - Video Library - The New York Times



Continue This Conversation on Bloggingheads.tv »
I was never a Bush hater, and I always wondered why some people voted for Obama thinking he was.

This does not mean I agree with most cons or wingers here. They too misinterpret most of what Bush did.

:cool:
dD

---

Bush in his second term got it right? If one agrees with the progressives debating this, and you are a conservative or winger critic of Obama, you have to wonder what world you live in when you call Obama weak on security.

---

and then there is the idea that we have a pretty good safety mechanism against potential terrorists, and it is the policing methods used to thwart and then capture the Times Square terrorist. there is much criticism of what happened, but most of it is silly. The guy was captured...the what ifs are just that---what ifs: mental masturbation
 
R

rdean

Guest
Bush misled the country into invading another country for no apparent reason. When has the US ever done such a dreadful thing.

Bin Laden is probably living in a villa somewhere in Pakistan. How is it possible Bush and the Republicans could "lose interest" (I don't think about him anymore) after what he did to this country?

Without the incompetency and lies of Bush and the Republican Party, our troops would have been home and this would have been over years ago. And don't get me started on OSHA, the EPA, the Justice System, the Katrina Clean-up, the economy, deregulation and on and on.

Bush and the Republicans were a much, much bigger disaster for the US than al Qaeda EVER was.

The fact that anyone could still be looking for something where Bush was "right" is misplaced and pathetic.
 
OP
Dante

Dante

On leave
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
52,462
Reaction score
3,366
Points
1,825
Location
On leave
Bush...

...

The fact that anyone could still be looking for something where Bush was "right" is misplaced and pathetic.
:offtopic:

You would need to view the video or have a link to it's content to comment rationally on this subject. I apologize for ignoring your raving rant against Bush, but the OP is about a serious look at where we are and where we are going. Part of that is looking honestly and dispassionately at the truth as it unfolds before us.

:cool:
dD
 
OP
Dante

Dante

On leave
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
52,462
Reaction score
3,366
Points
1,825
Location
On leave
Here we have a reasonable response worth noting...

Bloggingheads.tv - Chess Moves
Really interesting and totally civil discussion between two people you wouldn't expect to be able to be able to have a discussion at all -- at least if they were holding it on Fox or MSNBC.

Glenn sees only two possibilities -- either the left didn't mean it when they objected to Bush's approach to civil liberties or they are cravenly falling into line behind a leader of their own side. I think Frum's explanation of Obama can be extended to the left to some degree.

Politics is always a matter of trust. You trust Nixon to go to China because you expect his basic impulses to pull him in the opposite direction.
Obama has persuaded many liberals that his heart is in the right place and that he is more politically savvy than most of us. His compromises, we trust (or hope) are the best we can do in a sustainably liberal direction. Either he sees good reasons that override (what we take to be) his natural predilection for civil rights or he sees political reasons that make this the most liberal position he can sustain politically.

Of course, there remains the possibility, which I take seriously and which I'm glad to have Glenn representing, that Obama's judgment on these issues is being corrupted by power. I don't regard this position as out of the running, but I don't regard it as conclusively proved either. It isn't crazy to give Obama the benefit of the doubt as we assess what is unfolding. And after two terms of George W Bush, the left is far less certain than the right is that the whole country agrees with it, and that if Obama were to stick his neck out on civil liberties etc. that the country will back him up.

Frum's hypothesis that the web has opened the minds of the best informed minority and helped to close the minds of the less well-informed majority is interesting and plausible. My own experience is that the web makes open-mindedness much easier to those who have any inclination toward it -- but that's entirely consistent with Frum's hypothesis. Anyway, the hypothesis reveals the kind of sophistication that open-minded liberals appreciate Frum for, even when they are not predisposed to agree with him.

Last edited by Bloggin' Noggin; 05-05-2010 at 09:21 PM. Chess Moves (Glenn Greenwald & David Frum) - Bloggingheads Community
 
Last edited:
R

rdean

Guest
Bush...

...

The fact that anyone could still be looking for something where Bush was "right" is misplaced and pathetic.
:offtopic:

You would need to view the video or have a link to it's content to comment rationally on this subject. I apologize for ignoring your raving rant against Bush, but the OP is about a serious look at where we are and where we are going. Part of that is looking honestly and dispassionately at the truth as it unfolds before us.

:cool:
dD
I just don't see this as a very good debate. These two guys start off with "Obama changed Bush's policies, but kept the same policies". If they are changed, then they are not the same. By the end of the debate, they don't even bother with "changed", they just say the policies are the same.

And let's look at one of those policies. The lack of "faith" in our justice system.

Only three terrorists were "convicted" in Military Tribunals under Bush. That's three. One Two Three. Two of them were "let go" where they returned to the battlefield. One had a hand in training the "pantie bomber".

That means Bush had a success rate of 33 and one third percent in terrorist incarceration after Military Tribunal. That is a DISGRACE.

The conviction rate for those in the US Justice system is 100% and hundreds are in maximum security prisons where NO ONE has ever escaped.

Republicans, with the help of the "so called" liberal press, convinced the American people that Obama would release these terror suspect on to the street. Obama had to change his policy. To fight what the Republicans did would only make Obama seem like a "terrorist sympathizer". No one is better at lies and deceit than Republicans. They don't need facts.

So, from that debate, "Bush's and Obama's policies are EXACTLY the same except that Obama changed them".
 
OP
Dante

Dante

On leave
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
52,462
Reaction score
3,366
Points
1,825
Location
On leave
Bush...

...

The fact that anyone could still be looking for something where Bush was "right" is misplaced and pathetic.
:offtopic:

You would need to view the video or have a link to it's content to comment rationally on this subject. I apologize for ignoring your raving rant against Bush, but the OP is about a serious look at where we are and where we are going. Part of that is looking honestly and dispassionately at the truth as it unfolds before us.

:cool:
dD
I just don't see this as a very good debate. These two guys start off with "Obama changed Bush's policies, but kept the same policies". If they are changed, then they are not the same. By the end of the debate, they don't even bother with "changed", they just say the policies are the same.

And let's look at one of those policies. The lack of "faith" in our justice system.

Only three terrorists were "convicted" in Military Tribunals under Bush. That's three. One Two Three. Two of them were "let go" where they returned to the battlefield. One had a hand in training the "pantie bomber".

That means Bush had a success rate of 33 and one third percent in terrorist incarceration after Military Tribunal. That is a DISGRACE.

The conviction rate for those in the US Justice system is 100% and hundreds are in maximum security prisons where NO ONE has ever escaped.

Republicans, with the help of the "so called" liberal press, convinced the American people that Obama would release these terror suspect on to the street. Obama had to change his policy. To fight what the Republicans did would only make Obama seem like a "terrorist sympathizer". No one is better at lies and deceit than Republicans. They don't need facts.

So, from that debate, "Bush's and Obama's policies are EXACTLY the same except that Obama changed them".
The debate in the video is mostly an epistemic one...

Epistemology: Much of the debate in this field has focused on analyzing the nature of knowledge and how it relates to similar notions such as truth, belief, and justification. It also deals with the means of production of knowledge, as well as skepticism about different knowledge claims.
-Epistemology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're still attacking Bush and the right.

Maybe you posted in reply to my first reply to you---so you jumped over this post...?


Here we have a reasonable response worth noting...

Bloggingheads.tv - Chess Moves
Really interesting and totally civil discussion between two people you wouldn't expect to be able to be able to have a discussion at all -- at least if they were holding it on Fox or MSNBC.

Glenn sees only two possibilities -- either the left didn't mean it when they objected to Bush's approach to civil liberties or they are cravenly falling into line behind a leader of their own side. I think Frum's explanation of Obama can be extended to the left to some degree.

Politics is always a matter of trust. You trust Nixon to go to China because you expect his basic impulses to pull him in the opposite direction.
Obama has persuaded many liberals that his heart is in the right place and that he is more politically savvy than most of us. His compromises, we trust (or hope) are the best we can do in a sustainably liberal direction. Either he sees good reasons that override (what we take to be) his natural predilection for civil rights or he sees political reasons that make this the most liberal position he can sustain politically.

Of course, there remains the possibility, which I take seriously and which I'm glad to have Glenn representing, that Obama's judgment on these issues is being corrupted by power. I don't regard this position as out of the running, but I don't regard it as conclusively proved either. It isn't crazy to give Obama the benefit of the doubt as we assess what is unfolding. And after two terms of George W Bush, the left is far less certain than the right is that the whole country agrees with it, and that if Obama were to stick his neck out on civil liberties etc. that the country will back him up.

Frum's hypothesis that the web has opened the minds of the best informed minority and helped to close the minds of the less well-informed majority is interesting and plausible. My own experience is that the web makes open-mindedness much easier to those who have any inclination toward it -- but that's entirely consistent with Frum's hypothesis. Anyway, the hypothesis reveals the kind of sophistication that open-minded liberals appreciate Frum for, even when they are not predisposed to agree with him.

Last edited by Bloggin' Noggin; 05-05-2010 at 09:21 PM. Chess Moves (Glenn Greenwald & David Frum) - Bloggingheads Community
 
Last edited:

Misty

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2009
Messages
7,137
Reaction score
1,923
Points
245
You know you've made it on a message board when people creatively mock you in avatar form. Lolol
 
R

rdean

Guest
:offtopic:

You would need to view the video or have a link to it's content to comment rationally on this subject. I apologize for ignoring your raving rant against Bush, but the OP is about a serious look at where we are and where we are going. Part of that is looking honestly and dispassionately at the truth as it unfolds before us.

:cool:
dD
I just don't see this as a very good debate. These two guys start off with "Obama changed Bush's policies, but kept the same policies". If they are changed, then they are not the same. By the end of the debate, they don't even bother with "changed", they just say the policies are the same.

And let's look at one of those policies. The lack of "faith" in our justice system.

Only three terrorists were "convicted" in Military Tribunals under Bush. That's three. One Two Three. Two of them were "let go" where they returned to the battlefield. One had a hand in training the "pantie bomber".

That means Bush had a success rate of 33 and one third percent in terrorist incarceration after Military Tribunal. That is a DISGRACE.

The conviction rate for those in the US Justice system is 100% and hundreds are in maximum security prisons where NO ONE has ever escaped.

Republicans, with the help of the "so called" liberal press, convinced the American people that Obama would release these terror suspect on to the street. Obama had to change his policy. To fight what the Republicans did would only make Obama seem like a "terrorist sympathizer". No one is better at lies and deceit than Republicans. They don't need facts.

So, from that debate, "Bush's and Obama's policies are EXACTLY the same except that Obama changed them".
The debate in the video is mostly an epistemic one...

Epistemology: Much of the debate in this field has focused on analyzing the nature of knowledge and how it relates to similar notions such as truth, belief, and justification. It also deals with the means of production of knowledge, as well as skepticism about different knowledge claims.
-Epistemology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're still attacking Bush and the right.

Maybe you posted in reply to my first reply to you---so you jumped over this post...?


Here we have a reasonable response worth noting...

Bloggingheads.tv - Chess Moves
Really interesting and totally civil discussion between two people you wouldn't expect to be able to be able to have a discussion at all -- at least if they were holding it on Fox or MSNBC.

Glenn sees only two possibilities -- either the left didn't mean it when they objected to Bush's approach to civil liberties or they are cravenly falling into line behind a leader of their own side. I think Frum's explanation of Obama can be extended to the left to some degree.

Politics is always a matter of trust. You trust Nixon to go to China because you expect his basic impulses to pull him in the opposite direction.
Obama has persuaded many liberals that his heart is in the right place and that he is more politically savvy than most of us. His compromises, we trust (or hope) are the best we can do in a sustainably liberal direction. Either he sees good reasons that override (what we take to be) his natural predilection for civil rights or he sees political reasons that make this the most liberal position he can sustain politically.

Of course, there remains the possibility, which I take seriously and which I'm glad to have Glenn representing, that Obama's judgment on these issues is being corrupted by power. I don't regard this position as out of the running, but I don't regard it as conclusively proved either. It isn't crazy to give Obama the benefit of the doubt as we assess what is unfolding. And after two terms of George W Bush, the left is far less certain than the right is that the whole country agrees with it, and that if Obama were to stick his neck out on civil liberties etc. that the country will back him up.

Frum's hypothesis that the web has opened the minds of the best informed minority and helped to close the minds of the less well-informed majority is interesting and plausible. My own experience is that the web makes open-mindedness much easier to those who have any inclination toward it -- but that's entirely consistent with Frum's hypothesis. Anyway, the hypothesis reveals the kind of sophistication that open-minded liberals appreciate Frum for, even when they are not predisposed to agree with him.

Last edited by Bloggin' Noggin; 05-05-2010 at 09:21 PM. Chess Moves (Glenn Greenwald & David Frum) - Bloggingheads Community
Since he has been in office, Obama has not been very "liberal". If anything, he has been "middle of the road" with conservative leanings on some things.

He certainly has not been the far out radical the right has portrayed him.

Pointing out "right wing" lies is "attacking the right" and "defending the liberal extreme" OR maybe it's just "pointing out right wing lies".

The current Republican party is a mess. Pointing that out doesn't mean you are "attacking them". Pointing out all their disasters isn't partisan, it's "honest".

Saying Democrats are on the side of terrorists and they hate America IS a lie and an attack.

Saying that Republicans spread fear is hardly an attack after years of "spreading fear".

 

Misty

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2009
Messages
7,137
Reaction score
1,923
Points
245
Let's ask Michael Moore about the terrorist threat.

"There is no terrorist threat in this country. This is a lie. This is the biggest lie we've been told."
 
OP
Dante

Dante

On leave
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
52,462
Reaction score
3,366
Points
1,825
Location
On leave
You know you've made it on a message board when people creatively mock you in avatar form. Lolol
most of my avatar mocks...LOL...have been taken down. many here complain to admin.
 
OP
Dante

Dante

On leave
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
52,462
Reaction score
3,366
Points
1,825
Location
On leave
Let's ask Michael Moore about the terrorist threat.

"There is no terrorist threat in this country. This is a lie. This is the biggest lie we've been told."
Who is Michael Moore?
 
OP
Dante

Dante

On leave
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
52,462
Reaction score
3,366
Points
1,825
Location
On leave
Since he has been in office...

...

Saying that Republicans...

http://silentmouth.com/images/Iraq-TerrorAlertChart.jp/IMG][/quote]

:offtopic:


fuck off nitwit
:whip:
 
Last edited:
R

rdean

Guest
Let's ask Michael Moore about the terrorist threat.

"There is no terrorist threat in this country. This is a lie. This is the biggest lie we've been told."
Gawd, I can't believe I'm defending Michael Moore.

Michael Moore said, "There are terrorists who committed horrendous acts of terrorism and probably will again, but there is no massive terrorist threat".

He is not saying that terrorism doesn't exist, he is saying that you can't let it control your lives.

California alone has more road deaths in ONE YEAR than all of the terrorist bombs and hijacked planes for the past 50 year PUT TOGETHER. You will never get Republicans to admit that. They like "terror and fear". They want Americans to be deathly afraid. It's clearly their strategy for getting elected.

U.S. road deaths decline, but motorcycle deaths increase | Bottleneck Blog | Los Angeles Times
 

Harry Dresden

Adamantium Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Messages
72,570
Reaction score
11,349
Points
2,060
Location
Nv.
Bush...

...

The fact that anyone could still be looking for something where Bush was "right" is misplaced and pathetic.
:offtopic:

You would need to view the video or have a link to it's content to comment rationally on this subject. I apologize for ignoring your raving rant against Bush, but the OP is about a serious look at where we are and where we are going. Part of that is looking honestly and dispassionately at the truth as it unfolds before us.

:cool:
dD
your not going to get that from Dean Dev.....he hates ANYTHING and ANYONE who disagrees with what he thinks....and since this piece is about Bush and the Republicans....Dean does not have to view it....he already knows....case closed with him....like his mind....
 

Harry Dresden

Adamantium Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Messages
72,570
Reaction score
11,349
Points
2,060
Location
Nv.
Since he has been in office, Obama has not been very "liberal". If anything, he has been "middle of the road" with conservative leanings on some things.

He certainly has not been the far out radical the right has portrayed him.

Pointing out "right wing" lies is "attacking the right" and "defending the liberal extreme" OR maybe it's just "pointing out right wing lies".

The current Republican party is a mess. Pointing that out doesn't mean you are "attacking them". Pointing out all their disasters isn't partisan, it's "honest".

Saying Democrats are on the side of terrorists and they hate America IS a lie and an attack.

Saying that Republicans spread fear is hardly an attack after years of "spreading fear".


hey Dean how come you dont mention all the years the Dems did their part of the "fear" mongering....

you dont mention all the lies told to us by the Democrats...

and you dean "attack' you never point things out....your condescending....so dont give us that shit....

and i work with Liberal Democrats Dean who think Obama is wrong on many things he has done so far....and yes some have not had nice things to say about him....so to you they would be "RIGHT-WINGERS" attacking the President....even though they are not....they are DEMS some fairly Liberal, who's only crime is,they do not like the direction Obama is taking us....
 
Last edited:

Tom Clancy

Clancy for Ron Paul
Joined
May 23, 2009
Messages
3,222
Reaction score
616
Points
48
Location
North Carolina.
Harry that's silly!

Neo-Democrats are the Party of the People, they don't need Fear Mongering.. They prefer to call it the "Truth".

And by Neo-Democrats i'm talking about people like rdean and Truthmatters. I like to call them that because of the similarity with the Neo-Cons.

Then there are the debatable and actually speak in a civil matter Democrats and don't blame everything on Bush.
 

Harry Dresden

Adamantium Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Messages
72,570
Reaction score
11,349
Points
2,060
Location
Nv.
Gawd, I can't believe I'm defending Michael Moore.
i can believe you would be defending the bloated one....why not he is one of your far left buddies....

and here is a bit of lying from you Dean.....the bolded part....you got a link proving that....and i dont mean from the Right Wing....i want it from Republicans.....your words....

"California alone has more road deaths in ONE YEAR than all of the terrorist bombs and hijacked planes for the past 50 year PUT TOGETHER. You will never get Republicans to admit that."


"They like "terror and fear". They want Americans to be deathly afraid. It's clearly their strategy for getting elected."


oh and please tell us how Democrats NEVER use fear and terror to try and get elected.....
 
R

rdean

Guest
Gawd, I can't believe I'm defending Michael Moore.
i can believe you would be defending the bloated one....why not he is one of your far left buddies....

and here is a bit of lying from you Dean.....the bolded part....you got a link proving that....and i dont mean from the Right Wing....i want it from Republicans.....your words....

"California alone has more road deaths in ONE YEAR than all of the terrorist bombs and hijacked planes for the past 50 year PUT TOGETHER. You will never get Republicans to admit that."


"They like "terror and fear". They want Americans to be deathly afraid. It's clearly their strategy for getting elected."


oh and please tell us how Democrats NEVER use fear and terror to try and get elected.....
Considering all the example you gave, I don't have to. Examples like

Actually, pointing out Republican failure seems to be example enough. Not sure how that is "fear mongering".

As far as "Right Wingers" attacking the president. Boyking Obama is a “boy” who is an empty suit, a racist, terrorist, child molester, Marxist, Kenyan, watermelon eating, totalitarian, Socialist, drug addicted, gay, Nazi, black, Muslim, Communist, illegal Alien who wants to kill your grandmother and is the "anti Christ" are NOT attacks, no, they are "endearments", obviously.
 

CMike

Zionist, proud to be
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
9,219
Reaction score
1,171
Points
190
Pres. Bush was spot on in dealing with terrorism and the two wars.

Obama is just a naive, idiot, who has put this country in grave danger. We now have had 4 terrorist attacks within America during Obama's reign, when previously we were protected for 7 years.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top