Bush's Farewell Speech

[canadianloon]

He really tried to go for the theme of "I did the best I could" after soooooooooooo much has changed since 9/11. I expected him to bring that up, of course, and for the most part, he didn't use that to justify his actions. It's the whole... war thing that there is no way he can talk his way out of. American soil hasn't seen another attack in seven years? I laughed and laughed at that... there wasn't such a grand act of terrorism from another country before 9/11 for nearly 60 years!!!

Never been happier to see a politican go away.

[1Roth4]

He really tried to go for the theme of "I did the best I could" after soooooooooooo much has changed since 9/11. I expected him to bring that up, of course, and for the most part, he didn't use that to justify his actions. It's the whole... war thing that there is no way he can talk his way out of. American soil hasn't seen another attack in seven years? I laughed and laughed at that... there wasn't such a grand act of terrorism from another country before 9/11 for nearly 60 years!!!

Never been happier to see a politican go away.

Well in some way its true. The truth is that we don't the full extent of what the Secret Service or the CIA has stopped in the last 7 years.

Thinking that we know the circumstances of the last 8 years of Bush's'presidency is a joke. You don't. He's'done the best with what he's'had, and has always stuck with what he thought was right. He's'made mistakes, he's'done some good.

I think the world will be suprised how much Obama's'policies mimic what Bush has proposed in the past.

I think hating on Bush has become a fad, and most people don't know exactly why they hate him, without the taking points they are being fed.

[CstSnow]

Well in some way its true. The truth is that we don't the full extent of what the Secret Service or the CIA has stopped in the last 7 years.

Thinking that we know the circumstances of the last 8 years of Bush's'presidency is a joke. You don't. He's'done the best with what he's'had, and has always stuck with what he thought was right. He's'made mistakes, he's'done some good.

I think the world will be suprised how much Obama's'policies mimic what Bush has proposed in the past.

I think hating on Bush has become a fad, and most people don't know exactly why they hate him, without the taking points they are being fed.

Completely true, and refreshing to hear,especially on this site. I'm no Bush fan but the bashing gets ridiculous.

[1Roth4]

Completely true, and refreshing to hear,especially on this site. I'm no Bush fan but the bashing gets ridiculous.

Thank you, we're going to get eaten alive though, just an FYI

[canadianloon]

I'm not saying he was a malicious president. He did want what was best, but he was not a good leader. He let his advisors tell him what to do. Some of that was willful ignorance. He wanted to prove America's strength with brute force, but the rest of the would rather see something more thought out. Cunning, he ain't... and it's what it takes to win wars. He didn't even bother figuring out exactly what he was fighting. Not purposefully spiteful... but still, it wasn't the right role for him.

[TK]

Bush had good intentions, but he was just massively unprepared for the job.

[alaskan]

He really tried to go for the theme of "I did the best I could" after soooooooooooo much has changed since 9/11. I expected him to bring that up, of course, and for the most part, he didn't use that to justify his actions. It's the whole... war thing that there is no way he can talk his way out of. American soil hasn't seen another attack in seven years? I laughed and laughed at that... there wasn't such a grand act of terrorism from another country before 9/11 for nearly 60 years!!!

Never been happier to see a politican go away.
Here is something to ponder, being that I take it you aren't a fan of Bush torture policies.

Obama's hypocrisy on this issue is identical to John McCain's. McCain denounced the Bush administration for "torturing" detainees. I disagree. I don't think waterboarding is torture; on the contrary, I think it is the ideal way to interrogate terrorists because it is quick and effective and because it does not actually harm them. I see it as a humane alternative to much worse techniques. But that's not the point, at the moment.

When McCain was asked what he would do in the "ticking time bomb" situation, where we have in our custody a terrorist with knowledge of plots in progress that may kill Americans, his response was that in that case, he would expect the President to do whatever was necessary. That is exactly the position Obama is now taking: we won't torture detainees. Unless, of course, we need to!

All of this might make some kind of sense if you assume that the Bush administration had a nasty habit of hauling terrorists (or Democrats, maybe) off the street for no particular reason, and waterboarding them. In fact, though, a total of three top-ranking al Qaeda terrorists were waterboarded, in the period shortly after September 11 when there was good reason to believe that they had knowledge of plots that were still active. This was exactly the "ticking time bomb" scenario where McCain has explicitly admitted, and Obama now implicitly agrees, "torture," or harsh interrogation tactics anyway, may be necessary.

In short, Obama's posturing is meaningless and politically motivated. His policy will not be any different from President Bush's; he is just trying to score cheap political points. Obama is no dummy, and is acutely aware of the Bush administration's extraordinary record of keeping us safe from terrorist attacks over the last seven years. He knows that his approval rating will sink like a stone if he exposes Americans to mass murder because of a foolish consideration for the comfort of terrorists. If and when the time comes, he will act exactly as George Bush did.

[loveisdead]

This thread hurts my head.

[saysmydoctor]

Just because this nation itself hasn't been attacked since 9/11, terrorism hasn't been halted in its tracks, slowed, or anything.

Bali, London bombings, Madrid, Chechen rebels killing the school children, and other attacks still occurred. His farewell speech was amero-centrism at its finest.

Also, waterboarding is torture and ineffective. Anyone with actual experience and who doesn't read Wikipedia to come as an intellectual would tell you that torture (which waterboarding is) only gets those detained and being tortured to tell what they think you want to here. (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/07/torture200707)

[loveisdead]

I just really disagree with people saying that Bush has kept us safe. It's really a silly thing to say. We are more vulnerable now than we ever have been because of his actions. People seem to forget that 9/11 happened well into his term, thousands have died in Iraq, and terrorists are just waiting to strike us again because of how much more they hate the country now.

[saysmydoctor]

Oh and he had intelligence prior to 9/11 about 9/11. He was so good at keeping us safe.

[loveisdead]

Oh and he had intelligence prior to 9/11 about 9/11. He was so good at keeping us safe.
Well that intelligence might have been talked about on a sunday, in which case he wouldn't have known about it.

[1Roth4]

I just really disagree with people saying that Bush has kept us safe. It's really a silly thing to say. We are more vulnerable now than we ever have been because of his actions. People seem to forget that 9/11 happened well into his term, thousands have died in Iraq, and terrorists are just waiting to strike us again because of how much more they hate the country now.

why do they hate your country. Do you actually talk to Iraqi's and ask them if they hate America?

If he hasn't kept America safe, then why haven't we seen another successful attempt to take American lives? There have been attempts. There have also been attempts in Canada, none of which successful. His whole point (and they"re his words, not mine) is that he has taken the fight overseas. He has brought the fight to them, so they don't come to America.

I'm not really sure why its a silly thing to say personally. I think you're just looking for "something" to complain about.

Lets complain about his environmental record.

[1Roth4]

Oh and he had intelligence prior to 9/11 about 9/11. He was so good at keeping us safe.

So you are saying, he knew about it before.... and did nothing?

[Machu505]

So you are saying, he knew about it before.... and did nothing?

He's saying that Bush did not take the threat seriously.

[1Roth4]

He's saying that Bush did not take the threat seriously.

i'm not sure how you get that from what he said.

[loveisdead]

why do they hate your country. Do you actually talk to Iraqi's and ask them if they hate America?

no. I take the people in Iraq burning his picture and American flags as hatred for our country.
If he hasn't kept America safe, then why haven't we seen another successful attempt to take American lives? There have been attempts.
There have been plenty of successful attempts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thankfully nothing has happened here and that is owed to very increased security since 9/11.
There have also been attempts in Canada, none of which successful.
That doesn't really have anything to do with Bush.
His whole point (and they"re his words, not mine) is that he has taken the fight overseas. He has brought the fight to them, so they don't come to America.
It doesn't change the fact that thousands died in 9/11 while he was president, and even more have died fighting a war that is unconstitutional .

I'm not really sure why its a silly thing to say personally. I think you're just looking for "something" to complain about.
I don't have to look far. There are plenty of things to complain about that are easier than keeping us safe. I've just been hearing that a lot and thought I'd address it and see what responses came out of it.

Lets complain about his environmental record.
What record?

[saysmydoctor]

So you are saying, he knew about it before.... and did nothing?
Judging by how we have no twin towers and the investigations that took place afterwards.

I'm going to go with a "Duh."

[1Roth4]

Judging by how we have no twin towers and the investigations that took place afterwards.

I'm going to go with a "Duh."

insightful

[saysmydoctor]

Well, even we still didn't have the towers and he at least tried...at least he could say he tried. But he did nothing reactionary with the intelligence. Nothing.

So yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.

[jawstheme]

How many terrorist attacks happened prior to Bush being in office? Why is he more effective than anyone else? He has been effective at taking away many rights that the founding fathers of this country fought for, and so many others fought to preserve.

[loveisdead]

How many terrorist attacks happened prior to Bush being in office? Why is he more effective than anyone else? He has been effective at taking away many rights that the founding fathers of this country fought for, and so many others fought to preserve.
Clinton...
The civil rights issue is a different argument though.

[1Roth4]

no. I take the people in Iraq burning his picture and American flags as hatred for our country.

We must watch different news channels. But I hope you question what you see on that television. Because I certainly question what I don't see.


There have been plenty of successful attempts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thankfully nothing has happened here and that is owed to very increased security since 9/11.

He's not touting that he made the world a safer place. But he's saying that he's kept Americans safer.


That doesn't really have anything to do with Bush.

Actually, it does. American security is very much inter-related with Canadian security. A safer America= A safer Canada.


It doesn't change the fact that thousands died in 9/11 while he was president, and even more have died fighting a war that is unconstitutional.
come on, really?


I don't have to look far. There are plenty of things to complain about that are easier than keeping us safe. I've just been hearing that a lot and thought I'd address it and see what responses came out of it.

There are valid arguments for detesting Bush. And I agree with most of them. I just don't think that you have one.

[1Roth4]

Well, even we still didn't have the towers and he at least tried...at least he could say he tried. But he did nothing reactionary with the intelligence. Nothing.

So yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.

I didn't realize you knew so many "insider details" on American Intelligence.

[jawstheme]

Clinton...
The civil rights issue is a different argument though.

Do you mean the '93 World Trade Center bombings? Where six people died? As compared to...

[loveisdead]

We must watch different news channels. But I hope you question what you see on that television. Because I certainly question what I don't see.



He's not touting that he made the world a safer place. But he's saying that he's kept Americans safer.



Actually, it does. American security is very much inter-related with Canadian security. A safer America= A safer Canada.


come on, really?



There are valid arguments for detesting Bush. And I agree with most of them. I just don't think that you have one.
It's like this for me. More countries don't like us than before he took the presidency and its mostly because of his actions concerning Iraq. That makes us less safe. He's ruined the economy so that we don't have as much money to keep us safe. I feel like we're more vulnerable than ever for an attack to happen on our soil.

[loveisdead]

Do you mean the '93 World Trade Center bombings? Where six people died? As compared to...
No I realize they don't compare, I was just saying that it did happen.

[1Roth4]

It's like this for me.
1. More countries don't like us than before he took the presidency and its mostly because of his actions concerning Iraq. That makes us less safe.
2. He's ruined the economy so that we don't have as much money to keep us safe. I feel like we're more vulnerable than ever for an attack to happen on our soil.

1. American intervention isn't something that Bush made up. The United States has intervened in many states, most of which people didn't agree with. Saying that more people hate you now, as to before isn't true. Once you put a new face on the same Presidential policies, the world will love you once again.

2. This is not true. If you're going to tell me he ruined the economy, you're going to have to explain to me how he was involved prior to his 8 years as President.

[loveisdead]

1. American intervention isn't something that Bush made up. The United States has intervened in many states, most of which people didn't agree with. Saying that more people hate you now, as to before isn't true. Once you put a new face on the same Presidential policies, the world will love you once again.

2. This is not true. If you're going to tell me he ruined the economy, you're going to have to explain to me how he was involved prior to his 8 years as President.
It isn't something he made up, but it's something he did more than most other presidents. Clinton and Reagan didn't go invading other countries and hanging their leaders. What was wrong with the economy before he took office? We saw the largest economic growth in the history of this country during the Clinton years.

[jawstheme]

1. American intervention isn't something that Bush made up. The United States has intervened in many states, most of which people didn't agree with. Saying that more people hate you now, as to before isn't true. Once you put a new face on the same Presidential policies, the world will love you once again.

2. This is not true. If you're going to tell me he ruined the economy, you're going to have to explain to me how he was involved prior to his 8 years as President.

Our economy was good prior to his 8 years being President. Even if it wasn't, he had 8 years to turn it around and he failed miserably.

Here is a good article about it

http://www.moderateindependent.com/v1i2news1.htm

[saysmydoctor]

I didn't realize you knew so many "insider details" on American Intelligence.
Open a fucking book.

[saysmydoctor]

It isn't something he made up, but it's something he did more than most other presidents. Clinton and Reagan didn't go invading other countries and hanging their leaders. What was wrong with the economy before he took office? We saw the largest economic growth in the history of this country during the Clinton years.
And a budget surplus.

[J.C.]

The Bush Administration did a great job reducing 9/11 to a political mulligan.

Only the Republicans could have a terrorist attack happen on their watch and then make the argument that it's the Democrats who can't keep you safe.

[1Roth4]

Our economy was good prior to his 8 years being President. Even if it wasn't, he had 8 years to turn it around and he failed miserably.

Here is a good article about it

http://www.moderateindependent.com/v1i2news1.htm

Ohh I agree, he didn't help the cause. But its not "his doing". I'll read the article at half-time

[loveisdead]

I miss when Tate used to come in here. Eda is the only staff member that pays attention to the politics forum.

[1Roth4]

Open a fucking book.

Reccomend me one. I didn't realize I was being un-intelligent. From my studies I understood intelligence information wasn't de-classified for 50 or 75 years depending on its content. So how authors of books, and newspapers can have pieced together a "whole story" is beyond me. But I'm willing to read if you want to elaborate on you previous message.

[captainhampton]

Reccomend me one. I didn't realize I was being un-intelligent. From my studies I understood intelligence information wasn't de-classified for 50 or 75 years depending on its content. So how authors of books, and newspapers can have pieced together a "whole story" is beyond me. But I'm willing to read if you want to elaborate on you previous message.

you didn't hear that saysmydoctor is in the loop and gets all that classified info?

[Lueda Alia]

I miss when Tate used to come in here. Eda is the only staff member that pays attention to the politics forum.
That's because I'm a nerd.

[loveisdead]

That's because I'm a nerd.
To be fair, we're all nerds.

[GuitarR0cker1]

This was a terrible, terrible speech. It pretty much rehashed all the bullshit Bush has been saying since 2003 and shortened it into one short speech. I will actually agree that Bush's anti-terrorist measures weren't that bad but it doesn't change the fact his foriegn policy was terrible, and his domestic policy was terrible.

[Lueda Alia]

To be fair, we're all nerds.
Yeah, but I meant out of all the other Staff members.

I'm pretty sure I'll end up majoring in Political Science (with Philosophy as a minor).

[loveisdead]

Yeah, but I meant out of all the other Staff members.

I'm pretty sure I'll end up majoring in Political Science (with Philosophy as a minor).
Great great great idea. I would probably do the same if I could go back 3 years.

[GuitarR0cker1]

Yeah, but I meant out of all the other Staff members.

I'm pretty sure I'll end up majoring in Political Science (with Philosophy as a minor).
This is what I want to do but I heard there are very limited amounts of jobs for those who graduate with a Pol Sci.

[loveisdead]

This is what I want to do but I heard there are very limited amounts of jobs for those who graduate with a Pol Sci.
There are very limited amounts of jobs for everyone. Do what you want to do and the rest will come in time.

[Lueda Alia]

Great great great idea. I would probably do the same if I could go back 3 years.
This is why I took a few years off. I've always been torn between Sociology and Politics. I love both, but I think it's safe to say that Political Science is where I belong.

Are you graduating this year?

[Lueda Alia]

This is what I want to do but I heard there are very limited amounts of jobs for those who graduate with a Pol Sci.
You have a lot of time to decide. Don't rush it.

[loveisdead]

This is why I took a few years off. I've always been torn between Sociology and Politics. I love both, but I think it's safe to say that Political Science is where I belong.

Are you graduating this year?
Yeah you would do well in Polisci. I am graduating in May. Scary thought.

[Lueda Alia]

Yeah you would do well in Polisci. I am graduating in May. Scary thought.
What's your major?

[loveisdead]

What's your major?
Broadcast journalism. I'm kind of unsure exactly what I want to do with it.

[raychull]

Well in some way its true. The truth is that we don't the full extent of what the Secret Service or the CIA has stopped in the last 7 years.

Thinking that we know the circumstances of the last 8 years of Bush's'presidency is a joke. You don't. He's'done the best with what he's'had, and has always stuck with what he thought was right. He's'made mistakes, he's'done some good.

I think the world will be suprised how much Obama's'policies mimic what Bush has proposed in the past.

I think hating on Bush has become a fad, and most people don't know exactly why they hate him, without the taking points they are being fed.

best post I've read all day.

[alaskan]

Just because this nation itself hasn't been attacked since 9/11, terrorism hasn't been halted in its tracks, slowed, or anything.

Bali, London bombings, Madrid, Chechen rebels killing the school children, and other attacks still occurred. His farewell speech was amero-centrism at its finest.

Also, waterboarding is torture and ineffective. Anyone with actual experience and who doesn't read Wikipedia to come as an intellectual would tell you that torture (which waterboarding is) only gets those detained and being tortured to tell what they think you want to here. (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/07/torture200707)

page headline in the Washington Post informs us that an ex-CIA officer who participated in the interrogation of Abu Zubaida believes that the waterboarding of this terrorist "probably saved lives" but constitutes "torture." The interrogator in question, John Kiriakou, says that Zubaida wouldn't provide any information until he was waterboarded. After 35 seconds of that procedure, he broke down. The Post quotes Kiriakou as saying that, as a result of the information the CIA obtained, "several" planned attacks were disrupted. In fact, Kiriakou told ABC's Nightline that the information "disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks." Post reporters Dan Eggen and Joby Warrick decided, in other words, to downplay the positive effects of getting Zubaida to talk.

Kiriakou is probably well-positioned to report on the efficacy of the waterboarding of Zubaida and the positive results achieved by virtue of the information the CIA obtained. On the other hand, Kiriakou's view that the technique constitutes torture, which was not his view at the time, seems largely worthless, particularly if one construes it as a legal opinion.

It's understandable that Kiriakou has held conflicting views on whether waterboarding constitutes torture, just as it's understandable that Nancy Pelosi saw nothing objectionable in the procedure when she first was briefed about it. Waterboarding has some elements in common with practices which are universally deemed torture, but lacks other elements. For example, it causes no physical harm; indeed, we subject some of our own servicemen and agents to the procedure. Kiriakou was one of them.

Under these circumstances, a metaphysical discussion of whether waterboarding fits the "torture" category is probably not the best way to decide whether to use the procedure in an exigent case. The more promising approach is to consider the actual practice (not a label) and the level/duration of the distress it inflicts, evaluate its likely efficacy, consider whether less drastic methods will work, and weigh (as best we can) the need for information that the detainee is thought to possess. If Congress objects to this case-by-case approach, it should specifically ban waterboarding.

It's easy to believe that the decision-making process I just described would favor the use of waterboarding in at least a few cases, and there�s no indication that we�ve used it more than a few times. Based on Kiriakou's statements, it certainly seems that waterboarding Zubaida was the right call. Those who disagree should explain either (a) how they would have gotten Zubaida to talk or (b) why the lives of innocent people (the ones Kiriakou says were probably saved) should have been put at serious risk to spare this terrorist 35 seconds of extreme duress.

The Washington Post reports that in September 2002 four key members of Congress were fully briefed about the CIA's aggressive detention techniques, including waterboarding. None raised objections.

Of course they didn't. At that time, most rational people would have favored waterboarding (and more) as a means of obtaining information from high value terrorists. The four members in question -- Nancy Pelosi, Porter Goss, Bob Graham, and Pat Roberts -- represent a cross-section of the political spectrum. Pelosi is a leftist; Graham is a moderate-liberal; Roberts and Goss are conservatives. But they shared a desire to protect the country from further attack. That desire trumped partisanship, and was sufficient for Pelosi and the others effectively to sign off on what the CIA was doing.

Today, of course, things are different. We haven't been attacked in more than seven years, quite possibly because of the information we obtained through waterboarding and other aggressive techniques. Thus, the partisan instinct, coupled with the joy of posturing, prevails.

But the heat the CIA is taking now pales in comparison to the heat it would have taken had it not used aggressive techniques, and the U.S. had been attacked by al Qaeda again. And, with the range of available interrogation methods now scaled back, the final chapter in the dance of the congressional Democrats may not yet have been written.

I think waterboarding is the ideal interrogation technique for known terrorists. It is nearly always effective, works in just a few minutes, and does no physical harm. It works by frightening the subject, which seems highly appropriate for a terrorist.

What I can never understand is how, exactly, the people who object to waterboarding want us to interrogate terrorists. Presumably they don't want us to beat them; unlike waterboarding, that would not only scare the terrorists but do them physical harm. Do they seriously think that we can get timely information from hard-core terrorists through clever cross-examination? Or do they think that captured terrorists, like criminal defendants in the American judicial system, have a right to remain silent?

[Lueda Alia]

I think waterboarding is the ideal interrogation technique for known terrorists. It is nearly always effective, works in just a few minutes, and does no physical harm. It works by frightening the subject, which seems highly appropriate for a terrorist.

What I can never understand is how, exactly, the people who object to waterboarding want us to interrogate terrorists. Presumably they don't want us to beat them; unlike waterboarding, that would not only scare the terrorists but do them physical harm. Do they seriously think that we can get timely information from hard-core terrorists through clever cross-examination? Or do they think that captured terrorists, like criminal defendants in the American judicial system, have a right to remain silent?
So in other words, what these terrorists say - after being terrorized - is the truth? They don't lie out of fear? Is that what you're implying?

[alaskan]

So in other words, what these terrorists say - after being terrorized - is the truth? They don't lie out of fear? Is that what you're implying?

Well, it been proven effective. Looking at what we know-
we have been using waterboarding post 9/11
we havent been attacked since 9/11

Now we can obviously conjecture about what would have happened without using waterboarding, but we don't really know. All we can go off is the correlation between safety through information and its quality. Like I stated, what means do you propose to gather information? We could just ask them, they would probably just tell us, then we can go out for a drink and high five?

[J.C.]

So let me get this straight.

This is an ok assumption to make:

I think waterboarding is the ideal interrogation technique for known terrorists. It is nearly always effective, works in just a few minutes, and does no physical harm. It works by frightening the subject, which seems highly appropriate for a terrorist.

But this is not:

Oh and he had intelligence prior to 9/11 about 9/11.

Unbelievable.

[Lueda Alia]

Well, it been proven effective. Looking at what we know-
we have been using waterboarding post 9/11
we havent been attacked since 9/11
Wow. Great reasoning. I'm sure the torture inflicted on these terrorist is what has kept America safe!

Now we can obviously conjecture about what would have happened without using waterboarding, but we don't really know. All we can go off is the correlation between safety through information and its quality. Like I stated, what means do you propose to gather information? We could just ask them, they would probably just tell us, then we can go out for a drink and high five?
Of course. That's exactly what I think should be done. :rolleyes:

[J.C.]

Well, it been proven effective. Looking at what we know-
we have been using waterboarding post 9/11
we havent been attacked since 9/11

So true.

I haven't worn pajamas with the footies since 9/11 either. I think it's safe to assume my abstaining from pajamas with the footies has played a role in keeping America safe.

[alaskan]

So true.

I haven't worn pajamas with the footies since 9/11 either. I think it's safe to assume my abstaining from pajamas with the footies has played a role in keeping America safe.

Well this has turned into an intellectual discussion, you get to write off the fact that we are safe because of coincidence and my opinion is treated with a pajama reply which makes no sense?

[J.C.]

Well this has turned into an intellectual discussion, you get to write off the fact that we are safe because of coincidence

I was looking for some intelligent discussion too, but I recognized it wasn't going to happen with you continuing to make assumptions based on other assumptions. You're working on a completely baseless premise that waterboarding is a) not torture, b) effective nearly all of the time, c) is directly responsible for getting us valuable information of an imminent attack, and d) is the only means of obtaining the information sought after. And hilariously, you're 0 for 4 when proving any of those statements true.

and my opinion is treated with a pajama reply which makes no sense?

Based on a logical evaluation of the facts, my pajama reply has about as much to do with keeping us 'safe' as waterboarding.

And I say 'safe' because I don't believe the largest attack ever on American soil can be written off as a do-over, despite the wishes of the Bush-sympathizers.

[odelay]

Well, it been proven effective. Looking at what we know-
we have been using waterboarding post 9/11
we havent been attacked since 9/11

Now we can obviously conjecture about what would have happened without using waterboarding, but we don't really know. All we can go off is the correlation between safety through information and its quality. Like I stated, what means do you propose to gather information? We could just ask them, they would probably just tell us, then we can go out for a drink and high five?
Correlation is not causation.

[shes.a.ghost]

Bush was a piece of shit president. Probably a decent dude. Can't imagine how a human being would lead his country in any direction that he didn't believe was in it's best interest. Whether he was completely wrong or if he was right, he was only trying to help keep his country safe. I disagree with probably 90% of the things he did, but I also don't know 99.9% of what was really going on behind the scenes. Nor do you. I bitched and complained just as much as the next person during his presidency. But at least I can admit that I was probably doing so ignorantly. Seeing as how we don't know shit.

[J.C.]

Correlation is not causation.

:-(

You're telling me my distrust of pajamas with the footies is not responsible for America's safety?

[xerovision1]

"i'm rich and you're all poor and jobless/soon to be jobless. gl fixing this mess suckers!"

[1Roth4]

Yeah, but I meant out of all the other Staff members.

I'm pretty sure I'll end up majoring in Political Science (with Philosophy as a minor).

Thats a good degree. Western? And you've started haven't you?

[xfantabulousx]

Well in some way its true. The truth is that we don't the full extent of what the Secret Service or the CIA has stopped in the last 7 years.

Thinking that we know the circumstances of the last 8 years of Bush's'presidency is a joke. You don't. He's'done the best with what he's'had, and has always stuck with what he thought was right. He's'made mistakes, he's'done some good.

I think the world will be suprised how much Obama's'policies mimic what Bush has proposed in the past.

I think hating on Bush has become a fad, and most people don't know exactly why they hate him, without the taking points they are being fed.


10000000000000000% true.

[Lueda Alia]

Thats a good degree. Western? And you've started haven't you?
Yeah, Western. I start this fall because none of their programs started in January. Oh well.

[1Roth4]

Yeah, Western. I start this fall because none of their programs started in January. Oh well.

Thats great. Loved my program, not so much the school. Stay in school as long as possible, I graduated last year, and I've spent 3 months looking for work with the federal government. Its not an easy business. The best thing you can do is start volunteering with an MP now. I don't know of any in your region, but I know some in the Niagara region, as well as Hamilton. Its a good experience.

[1Roth4]

NDP MP's'I was referring to!

[J.C.]

c-c-c-combo breaker

[canadianloon]

Obama's hypocrisy on this issue is identical to John McCain's. McCain denounced the Bush administration for "torturing" detainees. I disagree. I don't think waterboarding is torture; on the contrary, I think it is the ideal way to interrogate terrorists because it is quick and effective and because it does not actually harm them. I see it as a humane alternative to much worse techniques.

Neither Obama nor McCain's policies have anything to do with what Bush has been doing in the White House for the last eight years. Yes, the world is going to see a different type of leader for america starting tomorrow... and I suppose that it will take time to see what exactly Obama will do with regards to the torture policies. You're setting up a straw man to defend Bush by, and it's not so much what the future administrations will condone but rather what Bush has been doing this whole time.

For someone who talks about liberty and justice, there sure isn't any in Gitmo. According to his speech, ideologies that oppress others must be stopped. It's not so much that he allows torture under his watch that I have a problem with (although I DO have a problem with it), it's the hypocracy. How does he expect america to gain respect when he's all over the place?

Just because this nation itself hasn't been attacked since 9/11, terrorism hasn't been halted in its tracks, slowed, or anything.

Bali, London bombings, Madrid, Chechen rebels killing the school children, and other attacks still occurred. His farewell speech was amero-centrism at its finest.

I agree. He was basically saying "I was President of the United States for eight years, and if you don't agree with what I did, too bad. My country can still kick your country's ass."


Do they seriously think that we can get timely information from hard-core terrorists through clever cross-examination? Or do they think that captured terrorists, like criminal defendants in the American judicial system, have a right to remain silent?

The term "terrorist" comes up so much... I don't think George W. Bush even knows what constitutes exactly as a terrorist, except that they have different "ideologies".

Well, it been proven effective. Looking at what we know-
we have been using waterboarding post 9/11
we havent been attacked since 9/11

As has been said about... correlation does not equal causation. In the summer, ice cream sales go up along with deaths by drowning. Ice cream causes people to drown!!!

I couldn't help but wonder what it would have been like if it had been Al Gore making that speech. But this history is what happened, so I am hoping I'll see better days for my american friends in the next eight years. I think it's a little ridiculous how Obama is treated like a saviour to the country; after all, he's only human. Still, it's going to be refreshing to see someone who can actually make decisions and lead a country.

[1Roth4]

Neither Obama nor McCain's policies have anything to do with what Bush has been doing in the White House for the last eight years. Yes, the world is going to see a different type of leader for america starting tomorrow... and I suppose that it will take time to see what exactly Obama will do with regards to the torture policies. You're setting up a straw man to defend Bush by, and it's not so much what the future administrations will condone but rather what Bush has been doing this whole time.

For someone who talks about liberty and justice, there sure isn't any in Gitmo. According to his speech, ideologies that oppress others must be stopped. It's not so much that he allows torture under his watch that I have a problem with (although I DO have a problem with it), it's the hypocracy. How does he expect america to gain respect when he's all over the place?



I agree. He was basically saying "I was President of the United States for eight years, and if you don't agree with what I did, too bad. My country can still kick your country's ass."




The term "terrorist" comes up so much... I don't think George W. Bush even knows what constitutes exactly as a terrorist, except that they have different "ideologies".



As has been said about... correlation does not equal causation. In the summer, ice cream sales go up along with deaths by drowning. Ice cream causes people to drown!!!

I couldn't help but wonder what it would have been like if it had been Al Gore making that speech. But this history is what happened, so I am hoping I'll see better days for my american friends in the next eight years. I think it's a little ridiculous how Obama is treated like a saviour to the country; after all, he's only human. Still, it's going to be refreshing to see someone who can actually make decisions and lead a country.

I'm more excited for someone who can make a sentence.

[1Roth4]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/images/20070509-4_f9x7210-515h.jpg

I've heard in the past that President Bush has a way with "healing" people. This picture really captures that.

Hopefully this makes up for the shot I took prior to this post.
:-)

[Praetor]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/images/20070509-4_f9x7210-515h.jpg

I've heard in the past that President Bush has a way with "healing" people. This picture really captures that.

Hopefully this makes up for the shot I took prior to this post.
:-)
Great picture.

[1Roth4]

Great picture.

everything but the belt. could he have not found a nicer belt than that. Come on George.

[Praetor]

haha seriously, you're the president of the United States and that's all you can pull?

[canadianloon]

A lot of Bush's former popularity came from the fact that people could relate to him. The idea of having an average, everyday Texan cowboy who is quite charismatic, especially when you're conversing with him one on one got a lot of people to vote for him. (Even the Dalai Lama was impressed and said he was easy to talk to.) The problem is that the a good leader isn't supposed to be an average Joe; that's a large part of his failing as President.

[1Roth4]

A lot of Bush's former popularity came from the fact that people could relate to him. The idea of having an average, everyday Texan cowboy who is quite charismatic, especially when you're conversing with him one on one got a lot of people to vote for him. (Even the Dali Lama was impressed and said he was easy to talk to.) The problem is that the a good leader isn't supposed to be an average Joe; that's a large part of his failing as President.

I can agree with that.

[Skadrist]

A lot of Bush's former popularity came from the fact that people could relate to him. The idea of having an average, everyday Texan cowboy who is quite charismatic, especially when you're conversing with him one on one got a lot of people to vote for him. (Even the Dali Lama was impressed and said he was easy to talk to.) The problem is that the a good leader isn't supposed to be an average Joe; that's a large part of his failing as President.

I told a coworker that the Republican's biggest mistake was not making John McCain wear a cowboy hat.

[1Roth4]

http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z23/cnredd/Obama_cowboy_hat.jpg

Bam. That will teach you John McCain

[Machu505]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO I was so excited to not have a cowboy president!

[1Roth4]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO I was so excited to not have a cowboy president!

I think it may be photoshopped, so you're safe.

[J.C.]

It's definitely real.

http://images.google.com/images?sourceid=navclient&rls=GGLJ,GGLJ:2006-19,GGLJ:en&q=obama%20cowboy%20hat&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi

[1Roth4]

It's definitely real.

http://images.google.com/images?sourceid=navclient&rls=GGLJ,GGLJ:2006-19,GGLJ:en&q=obama%20cowboy%20hat&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi

hahahaha

[asphyxiadreams]

Good riddance to Bush.
I can HOPE that Obama's better >_<
At least he's a democrat.

[a speedo model]

Well in some way its true. The truth is that we don't the full extent of what the Secret Service or the CIA has stopped in the last 7 years.

Thinking that we know the circumstances of the last 8 years of Bush's'presidency is a joke. You don't. He's'done the best with what he's'had, and has always stuck with what he thought was right. He's'made mistakes, he's'done some good.

I think the world will be suprised how much Obama's'policies mimic what Bush has proposed in the past.

I think hating on Bush has become a fad, and most people don't know exactly why they hate him, without the taking points they are being fed.
This was nice to read, thank you. I agree.