Credit or Blame?

Why does the Bush administration get all the blame when things go badly in Iraq, but get no credit for preventing any major terrorist activity in America over the last 5 years?

Are we going to judge people solely on results or the wisdom of their decisions? And shouldn't we be consistent?

Wow. This one's way too easy. So I'll start with the obvious.


It's better to have a bomber on the bus than a President threatening the Constitution.

And, you know, we've gone 5 years without a major terrorist strike before. It's not all that shocking.

I think the war was the right thing to do, however I would have used a different method, but thats a technicality now.

we only had what 5 under Clinton? *note* I included 9/11 due to the timing. occuring in September of Bush's first year, still Clinton's policies.

Do i really need to point out that every president since the Carter administration has had some knowledge that 9/11 would happen, though perhaps not when?

And do I further need to point out that you're trying to use my address regarding many presidential terms throughout history as a fulcrum for shamelessly launching "see, Bush is better than Clinton".

I'll say it again: I'd prefer 5 terrorist attacks per year in the USA than to become terrorists ourselves and be slaughtered in a country that doesn't want us.

Given that's pretty much his job description - making decisions - and he's been pretty bad at it in the opinion of the populace, I think the answer is "yes".

I've judged you on solely on the wisdom of deciding to post inane questions.

yet he got re-elected, hmmm......

Well, if you recall, the first time was contrary to the popular vote.

And the second time was between Giant Douche and Turd Sandwich. And was also very, very close. Close enough to bring up suggestions that the election was less than honest.

In fact, Kerry would likely have won if the Swiftboat Captains had told the truth (you do know that they've since been caught and some admitted to lying about Kerry, right?).

and the Dan Rather/Texas Air National Guard didn't hurt Bush's campaign?

Not really. Dan Rather wasn't on Fox News ^.^ .

lets see CBS or Fox News, I wonder which HAD more credibility

CBS, even after the Dan Rather incident.

Also, if the Swiftboat Captains had been busted for lying DURING the campaign like Rather was, the campaign may have had entirely different results.

Fox News is credible never.

for once we agree

Then to point out that the majority of Bush voters preferred Fox News would suggest that only imbeciles would vote for Bush, right?

imbeciles? no, more like entrenched. Now in Fox's defense thier local news around here isn't bad, their National and World news leaves much to be desired though.

By "entrenched", I assume you mean, 'Had their minds concluded, and didn't want facts mucking things up"?

well polarized is probably a better word, and there weren't alot of facts brought up during the re-election. just a bunch of talking bobble head dolls, ranting on and on and on........

The very reason The Daily Show belongs on CNN, not Comedy Central, these days.

you ever read his book "America"?

Extremely funny. Except for page 99. That shit was just disturbing.

I don't know page numbers, I listened to the audio book.

Lmao. Nice.

Bush has never shown that any of those accusations made against him are untrue, even if the source in particular was not legitimate. On the other hand Kerry has shown that the accusations made against him are untrue.

It is worth noting that there have been very few elephant attacks on US soil during the current administration, also.

I take credit for that, though.