Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests How well has Bush handled the war of terror?

Originally posted by Red1998SVT:

---

Originally posted by Flemloid 3.0:

---

theres no point in even discussing it.

---

Flemloid says there is no point in discussing Bush's record before the election. Is this a common point of view among Bush supporters?

---

Originally posted by Mysti-ken:

---

if they're true . . . Bush doesn't seem to acknowledge them as problems at all.

---

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

How well has Bush handled the war on terror? Let���?�s see:

1. We are bogged down in an increasingly deadly guerilla war in Iraq. Bush has spent over $200 BILLION on the Iraq war, and well over 1000 Americans have been killed there.

---

The price tag has Senate approval, so build a list nailing them and John Kerry to the wall for buying into the same beliefs. The number of American casualties PALES in comparison to the losses that Hussein's regime have taken, in addition to the insurgency losses...

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

Yet the resistance���?�s attacks are increasing and show no signs of abating. Large parts of Iraq are still not under governmental control.

---

Of course they are increasing. It's getting closer to election time. Anyone with half an intact cranium (apart from the idiots that put this piece together) know that it is a strategic goal to disrupt and increase their presence the closer it gets to election time.

Finally, Iraq has HUGE tracts of uninhabited desert. No sh!t it's not under government control; it's not under the control of the insurgent element either, Einstein.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

2. The nuclear, chemical and biological WMDs that the administration said were in Iraq â�?��?beyond all doubtâ�?� have never been found. Those weapons were Bushâ�?��?�s main justification for going to war.

---

They are a key part, yes, but they don't constitue the whole ball game. Hussein's refusal to account for a decades worth of deception about his weapons programs under various UNANIMOUS UN Resolutions (UN 1441 being the last of them) is the key reason behind invasion, in light of our concerns after 9/11. I might add that EVERY intelligence agency around the globe had the same rap sheet on Saddam's WMD capability. Care to comment on that particular piece?

I don't see how an apparent MASSIVE intelligence failure is solely Bush's fault, especially when the DCI of the CIA (George Tenet) told this administration that the case on WMD was a "slam dunk". When the DCI does this, one usually doesn't naysay him...

You are also forgetting to addres numerous concerns by various UN committies (UNIMOVIC, IAEA, weapons inspection teams, etc.) of dual-use equipment that remained in Iraq.

Ultimately, this is akin to claiming that the US Civil war was about slavery, when ULTIMATELY it was about state's rights. Learn to keep your eye on the ball if you can...

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

3. The centerpiece of Bush���?�s war on terror is the invasion of Iraq, a country that had virtually no terrorists and posed no real military threat to the U.S.

---

If this was the centerpiece on the war on terror, then why did we invade Afghanistan first?

I agree that Iraq wasn't brimming full of Al-Qaeda (and it aggrivates me that some in the Bush Administration still insist on a strong connection between such ideological disparate entities), but Hussein sponsored terrorism in various forms around the Middle-East (payments to Palistinian suicide bombers, aid and comfort to various Egyptian and Syrian extremists, etc.). Finally, military threat wasn't our concern. Only a drooling Neanderthal would tack this up on the wall for reasons to invade Iraq. Our concern wasn't on the conventional warfare aspects that Iraq was thought to pose...

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

4. The Iraq war has inflamed the Arab world and enraged millions of potential terrorists.

---

So has France's banning of head scarves in their schools. Sounds like you consider every Muslim a potential terrorist? If so, I guess I should start considering every liberal a potential fool?

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

Bush���?�s war has incited more terrorists and made us the most hated country in the world. This makes us less secure.

---

Yes, it certainly has brought them out of the woodworks and kept more of them from focusing their efforts (albeit unintentionally) here stateside. I'm sure taking the war to them makes the US less secure.

The US has always been one of the most hated countries in the world by terrorists, as it represents everything they stand against.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

5. Bush squandered the widespread international support we had after 9/11.

---

With France being one of the ringleaders in the UN Security Council and apparently having some of their government officials on the Iraqi bribe list, it's no wonder some of our support went by the wayside.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

He failed to cooperate with the UN, and chose to go it alone in Iraq.

---

Whoever wrote this article is an abject dumbass. The US has a fairly long list of allies during the time of invasion and still maintains a vast number of them in support of our efforts on terrorism.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

Now, almost no other important countries are willing to help us control terrorism and Islamic extremism. We have far fewer allies now. This makes us less secure.

---

This is so insipidly stupid it's childish. Even if some countries don't support our efforts in Iraq, almost ALL have come to the realization that Islamic extremism/terrorism is something that SERIOUSLY concerns them and they are taking measures to address it. See Spain, France, Germany and a whole slew of other civilized nations for examples.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

6. Warlords are re-establishing dominance in Afghanistan, because we never sent enough troops there to establish security outside of Kabul. Bush diverted troops to Iraq before the invasion of Afghanistan even started, and he has all but ignored it ever since.

---

Finally! Something that does ring true to a degree. I don't agree that Afghanistan is being ignored, though. It definitely hasn't garnered the attention that Iraq has, for obvious reasons.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

7. Bush���?�s failure to establish security in Afghanistan (the rural areas and borders are virtually wide open) has again made it a haven for terror groups. Many terrorist groups in Afghanistan are funded by the resurgent heroin trade, which we have insufficient resources in-country to control.

---

NO ONE has ever controlled the poppy/herion trade in Afghanistan. Neither the British, the Russians or anyone else that has invaded it.

Unless we place a US troop at every hut and goat stand in Afghanistan, the borders and rual areas (like in almost every other 3rd world country) will always be open for the Islamic extremists to operate in and out of with ease.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

8. U.S. military action in Afghanistan came so late and with such a small force that it all but ensured that Bin Laden and most other Al Quaeda and Taliban fighters would easily escape.

---

Thank Billy-Bob Clinton for thise one. We had Bin-Laden in our sights with accurate intelligence telling us where he was up until late '99-'00 (per the 9/11 commission report). Clinton didn't want the potential collateral damage, as Bin-Laden often slept in populated areas.

So, we should have struck at Afghanistan pre-emptivelyto facilitate the potential capture or death of Taliban/Al-Qaeda elements, though not done this in Iraq, despite 10 years of the Iraqi regime thumbing their noses at INTERNATIONALLY recognized and supported sanctions?

What's the weather like on Planet Moron?

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

The administration â�?��?delegatedâ�?� the fight in Tora Bora (our last real chance to capture Al Quaedaâ�?��?�s leadership) to local warlords, who had no real incentive to capture Al Quaeda leaders. Almost all Al Quaeda leaders and fighters escaped to Pakistan. Due to lack of U.S. troops, the administration delegated the control of the Afghan/Pakistan border to the Pakistani military; Pakistani troops did not even attempt to guard the border.

---

No argument from me here; we could have handled this MUCH better.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

9. Bush deployed too few troops in Iraq. Many thousands of innocent Iraqis died and ancient treasures were destroyed because the U.S. went in with just enough troops to depose Saddam, but not enough troops to secure the country.

---

Replace Bush with Rumsfeld, and I would agree, though I understand that the captain of the ship is ultimately responsible for the overall health of it and the direction it heads. There's a not insignificant portion of the Pentagon brass that needs to take some heat over things as well...

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

Iraq���?�s borders and rural areas are still unsecured. Much of the country has become a shooting gallery in which jihadists, mercenaries, suicide bombers and disgruntled Baathists are shooting and bombing U.S. soldiers.

---

Iraq's borders are IMPOSSIBLE to secure. What's your point? Put a half-million troops in there and the Islamic nutbags would still be streaming in from Syria, Iran and Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

10. Bush named Iran and North Korea as part of his â�?��?axis of evilâ�?� and said they are developing nukes capable of reaching the U.S., but he has done nothing about them.

---

So, I guess we should pre-emptively act here, too, right, because ALL situations and circumstances are the SAME (well, at least to an uneducated moron, or someone touting the sewage of propaganda)? The US along with the UN is actively engaging with Iran and DPRK about their nuclear aspirations and goals. This is FAR from doing nothing, unless whoever wrote this piece of trash thinks that diplomacy doesn't work and we should simply level the Hell out of both areas due to what appear as valid concerns (then why are they b!tching about our actions in Iraq?).

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

Both Iran and North Korea have nuclear and missile technology, and they have surged ahead in their WMD programs, in an attempt to be have a full nuclear arsenal before the U.S. recovers from the war in Iraq.

---

By all estimates, they were pushing for nuclear technology BEFORE the Iraq invasion and into the Clinton years...

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

11. The war in Iraq has reduced the U.S.���?� options with regard to Iran and North Korea. We now have fewer deployable soldiers, poorer finances, and less international support. Iran and North Korea need have virtually no fear that the U.S. will take military action against them in the near future, as we are stretched thin in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the American public is too weary and skeptical of Bush to support another war.

---

Our options with DPRK have ALWAYS been limited because of a rather large country that shares a northern border with it; perhaps you have heard of it:

CHINA.

Unless Kim Jong-Il goes completely off his rocker, we are stuck working a solution out together with China. Period. End of story.

Iran is a different situation from Iraq and DPRK yet again. It's too early to call.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

12. Saudi Arabia is a primary source of terrorism (including funding, personnel and ideological training), but Bush has refused to admit this. His ties to the oil industry, and to the Saudi royal family itself, make it unlikely that he will ever deal with the Saudis, who provide the bulk of terrorist funding.

---

Then why has the Bush administration stepped up and demanded better cooperation against Islamic charities in Saudi, as well as lean hard on the House of Saud to start policing it's back-yard better?

Terrorism is THE biggest threat to the House of Saud, as Bin-Laden sees it as an illegitimate government...

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

13. Our homeland is just as vulnerable to terrorism as it was before 9/11. Nine million shipping containers enter the U.S. each year, and only about two percent of them are inspected. Administration officials admit that we cannot afford proper inspection, in light of our having already spent $200 billion invading Iraq. A single container can hold enough explosive material to level any city in America.

---

I agree here. More needs to be done on this front BY FAR.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

14. America���?�s water supply is all but unguarded. Local governments complain that almost none of the promised funding for police, emergency response and protection of water and other utilities has been sent by the federal government. We are no safer on the local level than we were before 9/11.

---

We are safer, though only marginally so. I again concede that more needs to be done to protect areas of vital interest to us.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

15. Bush has articulated no comprehensive long term plan to defeat Islamic terrorists,

---

Nor has anyone else, apart from a few Hollywood actors that think negociation is the one-trick pony for every situation.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

other than the neo-conservative solution: invade selected Arab countries and attempt to install democratic regimes in the region. He refuses to discuss the possibility that the U.S.���?�s conduct with regard to Israel and Palestine is (as the terrorists themselves claim) the main reason for terrorism.

---

Because it's NOT. It's a popular poster-child for Islamic nutbags as it is the most visible one; Bin-Laden's MAIN complaint with the US was our presence in Saudi Arabia, which he considers holy land that shouldn't see the feet of infidels; parking tanks and troops was tantamount to war to him, even though the Saudi Arabian govt. wished this during the Gulf War I to keep a "wall" up against Iraq, should they want to go farther than Kuwait.

Guess what? The troops have left and Bin-Laden is still on his warpath. So much for this idiot's thought that Palestine is the issue...

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

16. We have worsened the living conditions in Iraq. The administration virtually ignored post-war planning recommendations from the State Department, the Pentagon and the CIA. The current chaos in Iraq is a direct result Bush���?�s failure to responsibly plan for a safe and humane occupation.

---

Rumsfeld and the Pentagon again need a firm boot in their posterior for this, though Bush needs a firm slap for the post-war conditions as well. Fair enough.



I've spent a little over 30 minutes on this and the pathetic thing is that I never once had to crack a book or dig for a resource to soundly refute almost everything here (and if you've got a question on the validity of any of what I've put in type here, I'll be glad to offer up links and sources). The vitrolic that you've managed to either haphazardly and ignorantly bang together yourself or "cut and pasted" from someone else's inept efforts at a refutation of this administration's foreign policy is little more than tainted refuse that has all the thought of and sophistication of a monkey tossing feces out of it's cage.

Turn off Dan Rather, crack open some other newspaper other than USAToday, read some books and then try again.