Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Does the cloister of George W. Bush mean that America is now safer from terrorism, or less safe?
Or, does America's arrogance persist but with a nicer (less smirky) face?
We know we miss him as a President, especially compared to the turd we have in office now.
We are probably not as safe because Obama did say he was dropping some of the safety measures Bush was using.
Bush on the other hand is a daily target of assassination due to the war, his being an ex President and the kooks on the left.
you are bitter than me, I am not bitter, so maybe you are bitter than me, or did you mean better? I can't believe anyone here would think he/she is better than someone else posting here: how totally sad..it says something about the person who thinks he/she is better. and what it says isn't very nice.
you are bitter than me, I am not bitter, so maybe you are bitter than me, or did you mean better? I can't believe anyone here would think he/she is better than someone else posting here: how totally sad..it says something about the person who thinks he/she is better. and what it says isn't very nice.
It never ceases to amaze me that people stupidly or conveniently forget that we had the worst terrorists attack on our soil in USA history ON BUSH'S WATCH!!! He was eight months into his Presidency, so at this juncture, it is safe to say that Obama has kept us safer.
It never ceases to amaze me that people stupidly or conveniently forget that we had the worst terrorists attack on our soil in USA history ON BUSH'S WATCH!!! He was eight months into his Presidency, so at this juncture, it is safe to say that Obama has kept us safer.
Clinton had Oklahoma City and the first World Trade Center bombing on his watch. Would that make him twice as bad at keeping us safe? Up until 9/11, terrorism was something that happened "somewhere else", even with these two aforementioned events. Unfortunately, we can no longer afford to have that feeling of immunity anymore and at the very least, we are better aware of the threats that are out there and might strike. Would it have been a different scenario under Gore, for instance? The reality is that 9/11 likely would have happened with Gore as well given our stance on terrorism until this point.
Do you really want to compare unemployment under Bush and Obama? Yes, both have risen about 3% for each. Took eight years for Bush; two for Obama. That's not something I would brag about.
It never ceases to amaze me that people stupidly or conveniently forget that we had the worst terrorists attack on our soil in USA history ON BUSH'S WATCH!!! He was eight months into his Presidency, so at this juncture, it is safe to say that Obama has kept us safer.
A terrorist attack which took at least 5 years to plan. Who was in office during the 5 years before 2001? What did he do to prevent the planned attack?
A terrorist attack which took at least 5 years to plan. Who was in office during the 5 years before 2001? What did he do to prevent the planned attack?
Gee! You would think, in that case, Bush would have taken all the pre 9/11 intelligence about Osama planning to attack America by hijacking US airplanes seriously.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
