10 reasons why George W. Bush was a smarter world leader than Barack Obama

[btarunr]

Nice read:

10 reasons why George W. Bush was a smarter world leader than Barack Obama (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100022714/10-reasons-why-george-w-bush-was-a-smarter-world-leader-than-barack-obama/)

By Nile Gardiner


When it took office a year ago, the Obama administration boasted of a new strategy of “smart power”, designed to restore America’s “standing” in the world. In essence this new approach to foreign policy was designed to distance the new US government in every way possible from the Bush administration, supposedly hated in every corner of the earth, from Berlin to Buenos Aires.

Hence, the hallmarks of Obama’s foreign policy have been the naive engagement of an array of odious dictatorial regimes, grovelling apologies before foreign audiences, lamb-like timidity in the face of intimidation, the ending of the War on Terror, and the trashing of traditional alliances. But has this liberal foreign affairs revolution succeeded in advancing American interests and security across the globe? Hardly. Under Obama’s leadership the United States now appears significantly weaker and far more vulnerable, faced with an array of deadly threats that grow more menacing by the day.

When President Bush was in power he may not have been hugely popular abroad, but the United States was widely feared on the world stage, her enemies were hunted to the ends of the earth, and her real allies were treated with respect. As Barack Obama is discovering to his cost, the world stage is not an extension of the set of American Idol, and global leadership is not about winning popularity contests. The doctrine of “smart power” looks increasingly like an empty shell, a naive approach that has reaped no dividends and threatens to usher in an era of American decline, unless it is reversed.

I’ve outlined below ten areas where George W. Bush’s international leadership was considerably smarter than that of his successor. As I noted in an article at the end of the Bush presidency, ten or twenty years from now, historians will view Bush’s actions on the world stage in a more favourable light. President Bush, like Ronald Reagan, understood that American global leadership rests heavily upon the projection of hard power as well as diplomacy, and the United States can only lead effectively if it is willing to aggressively confront its enemies and defeat them.

1. Bush never apologised for his country

Barack Obama has apologised for America’s past actions in practically every speech he’s given on foreign soil, and has humiliatingly referred to America’s “arrogance”. In contrast, George W. Bush’s speeches before international audiences were filled with pride for America’s history and achievements, with an uncompromising belief in the greatness of his country. The Obama approach has simply projected weakness rather than strength, and his diatribes against the previous administration’s counter-terror strategy has provided ample ammunition for those who believe the United States lacks the stomach for the fight ahead.

2. Bush identified and confronted evil

There was something very refreshing in George W. Bush’s Reaganesque interpretation of the world in terms of good and evil. In contrast, Barack Obama has viewed the globe largely in shades of grey, with a reluctance to describe who exactly America’s enemies are, from North Korea and Iran to Islamist terrorists. I applauded Bush when he delivered his infamous Axis of Evil address because he correctly identified the nature and scale of the threat the West is facing from an array of rogue regimes, who in some cases also act as large-scale sponsors of international terrorism. President Obama’s disastrous decision to engage Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs of Iran has simply bought the regime in Tehran valuable time to advance its nuclear and ballistic weapons programme, as well as its ambitions to dominate the Middle East.

3. Bush made the advance of freedom a key component of his agenda

The spread of freedom and liberty was always a centerpiece of the Bush agenda. His critics derided this approach as unrealistic, or as a grandiose dream. But few would argue today that the people of Iraq were better off living under a monstrous tyrant like Saddam Hussein. In marked contrast, Barack Obama rarely mentions the word freedom, and the issue of human rights is far down his list of priorities. He has remained largely silent in the face of extreme brutality by the Iranian regime, has extended the hand of friendship to genocidal killers in Sudan and has turned a blind eye to repression in places like Burma. There is a name for this kind of strategy – appeasement – and it only serves to weaken America’s standing in the world and strengthen the brutal fist of its enemies.

4. Bush defended national sovereignty

One of the biggest shifts in US foreign policy under the Obama administration has been its willingness to undermine national sovereignty, and its desire to give more power to supranational institutions such as the United Nations. Washington has already rejoined the embarrassing UN Human Rights Council (HRC), and is likely to sign up to the International Criminal Court and a host of UN treaties that threaten US interests. Barack Obama gave one of the most embarrassing and cringe-worthy speeches in American history at the UN General Assembly last September. President Bush, never a big fan of Turtle Bay, wisely kept his country out of the ICC and the HRC, and firmly resisted calls for him to sign the Kyoto Protocol as well.

5. Bush believed in the Special Relationship

I don’t recall George W Bush ever throwing a bust of Churchill out of the Oval Office or giving the British Prime Minister an insulting pack of DVDs. President Bush recognized Great Britain as America’s closest friend and ally, and placed the Special Relationship at the very heart of US foreign policy. Under Obama, the Anglo-American alliance has reached its lowest point since the Suez Crisis of 1956, a damning indictment of his world leadership. Bush possessed a genuine affection for the British people, their great heritage and their role in the world. Barack Obama cannot even bring himself to mention Britain in a major policy address or acknowledge the sacrifice of British forces in Afghanistan.

6. Bush cultivated key allies

Granted, Bush was hardly the most popular leader the US has ever had in Europe. But he did invest a great deal of time and effort in cultivating a strong personal relationship with several key European leaders, including Tony Blair, Jose Maria Aznar and Silvio Berlusconi. President Obama has largely ignored building alliances with European heads of state, and seems indifferent towards the transatlantic alliance. His administration has placed far greater emphasis upon backing the rise of a European superstate, than it has on strengthening ties wit close allies. The Obama administration has also succeeded in damaging the partnership between Israel and the United States, something no president has achieved since Jimmy Carter.

7. Bush understood the importance of missile defence

The Obama White House’s appalling surrender to Moscow’s demands to scrap Third Site missile defence was a shameful act in the face of Russian intimidation. It was an agreement the Bush Administration had painstakingly negotiated with key allies Poland and the Czech Republic, and the ensuing US withdrawal was a massive propaganda victory for Vladimir Putin and a huge betrayal of America’s friends in central and eastern Europe. It also demonstrated hesitation over adequately funding and building an effective global missile defence system, vital to the defence of the West against a mounting Iranian threat.

8. Bush believed in fighting a global war

One of the gravest mistakes of Obama’s first year in office has been his reluctance to describe the conflict against al-Qaeda and its backers as a global war. He dropped the idea of a War on Terror within days of entering office, which was subsequently renamed as an “Overseas Contingency Operation”. President Bush was right to rally his country behind a large-scale long war, one which may last for several decades, against an enemy that seeks the destruction of the West.

9. Bush did not compromise US security

The Obama administration’s zealous drive to dismantle the Bush administration’s infrastructure for dealing with al-Qaeda, including the promised closure of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, is having zero effect on lessening the threat the United States faces from Islamist terrorists. In fact, the followers of Bin Laden are now further emboldened by the President’s weakness, as demonstrated by the recent failed Detroit bombing attempt. President Bush was right to use all the tools at his disposal to keep America safe in the face of a vicious enemy. Barack Obama’s PR offensive to win over the hearts and minds of America’s enemies is already a spectacular failure.

10. Bush did not send mixed messages in the face of the enemy

A constant theme of Barack Obama’s speeches has been to describe the war in Iraq as a “war of choice”, underscoring his own intense opposition to the war, hardly a message of support for the more than 100,000 U.S. soldiers still stationed in the country. He also spent months dithering over whether to send additional US forces to the war in Afghanistan, and when he finally did make an announcement of an extra 30,000 troops it was tempered by the simultaneous declaration of an exit strategy, and a warning that America could not wage war against the Taliban indefinitely. This was hardly a display of Churchillian grit by the Commander-in-Chief. In contrast, President Bush never failed to give his soldiers the full, unequivocal backing they deserved, and always spoke in terms of achieving victory, instead of artificial timetables that hand the initiative to the enemy.

[DaMulta]

Blablablabalbalablbabalablbalablabalbaba

[JC316]

Blablablabalbalablbabalablbalablabalbaba

+1

4zOEtJBU2Pk

[Wile E]

While I don't agree with everything Bush did, and I still don't like him as a president, I firmly believe his foreign policy was superior. Far from perfect, but a hell of a lot better than appeasement.

And blablabla isn't a very good argument D. Are you trying to look dumb? :D

[FordGT90Concept]

Bush operated the country like a CEO: everything was on time and orderly. Like many CEOs, he wasn't the best speaker but, he nailed the speeches that really mattered (namely, speeches at the end of 2001). He did a commendable job as Commander in Chief.


Obama still has a few more years on the clock so I will withhold judgement.

[JC316]

While I don't agree with everything Bush did, and I still don't like him as a president, I firmly believe his foreign policy was superior. Far from perfect, but a hell of a lot better than appeasement.

And blablabla isn't a very good argument D. Are you trying to look dumb? :D

One of the main reasons that I don't like Bush is that under his rule, more freedoms got lost than any president before him. Plane trips became a nightmare, the war in Iraq was/is pointless IMO, gas prices skyrocketed, the economy went to shit, shipping something into another country, the patriot act, etc etc. Sadly, it seems that Obama is following his footsteps, maybe worse.

[FordGT90Concept]

Protecting privacy isn't a freedom. Speech is a freedom, the consequences of what is said is not.

Gas prices skyrocketed because of international speculation of reaching peak oil (it will happen again).

Bubbles form and they burst. Clinton had to deal with the dot-com bubble. Bush had to deal with the subprime bubble.

[Wile E]

One of the main reasons that I don't like Bush is that under his rule, more freedoms got lost than any president before him. Plane trips became a nightmare, the war in Iraq was/is pointless IMO, gas prices skyrocketed, the economy went to shit, shipping something into another country, the patriot act, etc etc. Sadly, it seems that Obama is following his footsteps, maybe worse.

I agree, except the war on terror aspect. I'm glad he went after terrorists and Saddam. Even if you don't like that we did it, it's still better than appeasement at least.

The Patriot Act was the worst thing to come out of his term in office.

[JC316]

I agree, except the war on terror aspect. I'm glad he went after terrorists and Saddam. Even if you don't like that we did it, it's still better than appeasement at least.

The Patriot Act was the worst thing to come out of his term in office.

If there were more attacks, maybe it would have been worth it. Dont get me wrong, going after the terrorists and removing a dictator is a great thing, but I don't like the cost of it. The cost of American soldiers, the financial cost, and the media fueled panic that came out of it. I still have a hard time buying into the official story of 9/11, so much stuff that didn't make a whole lot of sense.

[SK-1]

Very thought provoking post btarunr. I thought of this thread when I saw this story. I'm not sure I miss him yet, but I loled.
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/news_cut/archive/2010/02/the_mystery_billboard.shtml
http://img.techpowerup.org/100209/Capture173.jpg

[Ozzmanfloyd120]

Another bandwagon speech. I try to stay away from this part of the forum because politics irritate me, but it's impossible to judge any presidency until after it's ended. I guess you can compare it to a sporting event, at the end of the first quarter it might look like the Colts have it in the bag, but who's to say that the Saints aren't going to come back and slaughter them.
Same holds true with a presidency, and honestly to judge a country's problems on a single person in Washington is ludicrous, there's checks and balances for a reason. The president can't just go making decisions all willy-nilly off on his own, it takes House and Senate support before it's even considered, and most times if the house and senate both agree on a bill and it gets vetoed by the president it can be overridden.
Foreign Policy isn't "Obamma's" foreign policy or "Bush's" foreign policy, it's Washington's Foreign Policy.

[DrPepper]

You think you have it bad ? Our PM is blind in one eye and an idiot.

[WhiteLotus]

You think you have it bad ? Our PM is blind in one eye and an idiot.

Quoted for truth.

Still, better than Cameron though. He is the lesser of two retards.

[DrPepper]

Quoted for truth.

Still, better than Cameron though. He is the lesser of two retards.

I propose we change the system to fix this.

"America, Take Note"

The top 5 candidates are elected by the people to fight to the death in a MMA cage match. That way we'd have a PM that no one would fuck with.

[DirectorC]

Bubbles form and they burst. Clinton had to deal with the dot-com bubble. Bush had to deal with the subprime bubble.

Obama has to deal with a bubble that will never burst: the 'retarded Americans who live in the middle of nowhere but think they know everything' bubble.

[Black Panther]

You think you have it bad ? Our PM is blind in one eye and an idiot.

Our pm is a marionette, constantly manipulated pulled and pushed about by his ministers and other people with power and/or money like influential businessmen etc.

And on top of that he's downright... uhh unhandsome to put it mildly!
http://img.techpowerup.org/100209/thegonz.jpg

[MRCL]

Our heads of state also think we have to bow down to everyone.

One of em kneeled down to Ghaddafi begging him to release the two Swiss hostages ffsake! If I was Ghaddafi I would be laughing my ass off.

One of em (a female) wore a burka when meeting some Iranian politician.

One of em (another female) is like the bible. She only speaks in antagonisms.

One of em never stands up to anybody and is always timid. AND he criminalises everyone driving a car fueled by gas, but complains about the state not having enough money to build or maintain new roads due to the lack of gasoline taxes.

The other three are alright.


About Obama I don't really like him, but lets see if he gets elected once more.

[FordGT90Concept]

Obama has to deal with a bubble that will never burst: the 'retarded Americans who live in the middle of nowhere but think they know everything' bubble.
The Americans in the middle of no where generally rate highest on SAT/ACT standardized testing (ehm, not retards).

[pantherx12]

Wait a minute, all those reasons are stupid!

" bush support a global war" this makes him a better leader?

Fighting a war that can't be won? Yeah real good use of resources.

[DaveK]

Our president doesn't even bloody do anything. The last thing of importance she did was cut a ribbon to a youth center in a shitty area that is most likely going to be closed all the time, have graffiti tags on the outside and be a hang out spot for drug dealers.

The person who does the work is the Taoiseach, Brian Cowen, and he's such a retard.

The whole Irish government is retarded. Budget cuts left right and center. School funding cuts leading to school closures, hospital funding cut, welfare cuts and so on. Money is being cut from budgets yet isn't being spent on anything else. Of course, these guys are getting €200,000 and up a year to spend on things like a large Mercedes for 1 person and their driver while the rest of us get the bus or drive ourselves while 3/5 families are living on €20,000 a year.

[DrPepper]

See that's why you should have stayed with us instead of becoming independant :p just kidding I dunno if that's a touchy subject.

[jmcslob]

The Best thing Bush did was set a date for the Lunar Mission....

He Actually understood the Importance of H3 for future Energy Needs..

35% of his policies lead this Country into the Ground

Overall he was to far disconnected from the people...

I see someone keeps praising him for running his office like a Business......

Maybe that was the problem..Since it's a country and not a Fucking Business..
Things tend to be Completely more Complicated...

Sadly He failed at every business he was involved in....
and to say He ran the country like Goldman Sachs is not a Good thing....I think most would say it was his biggest downfall and in noway a plus...

[El Fiendo]

Countries are businesses, they fail otherwise.

[DanTheBanjoman]

Our pm is a marionette, constantly manipulated pulled and pushed about by his ministers and other people with power and/or money like influential businessmen etc.

And on top of that he's downright... uhh unhandsome to put it mildly!


Our is a pussy, he likes being friends with other presidents/prime ministers.

http://www.geenstijl.nl/archives/images/balkiezoenobama.jpg
http://www.digischool.nl/kleioscoop/balkenende.jpg
http://www.euronet.nl/users/pcmversch/beelden/Balkenende-potter.jpeg

I'm so proud he is our leader.

[Papahyooie]

Blablablabalbalablbabalablbalablabalbaba

I agree with WileE. This statement pretty much just invalidates any opinion you might have. Just saying...

The truth is, whether you like it or not, the chances are both Obama and Bush are smarter than you. Bush's IQ is reported to be around 130. Obama's, 140 (no IQ test is perfect, and all have different scoring, so these are only approx. Give or take 10 points will make no difference.) So, very similar. Both easily smart enough to join Mensa. If you believe that George Bush is an idiot, and that he failed at everything he did, you've listened to the media, and watched the movie "W" way too much. As for not believing in 9/11... theres so much that doesn't make sense? How about a government blowing up thier own citizens' trade centers for making sense eh? Makes plenty of sense, right?
Another misconception is that presidents create problems. No president has ever done anything to intentionally destroy his own country. Under Bush, gas prices rose to record highs. So it must be his fault right??? RIGHT??? Really, why in the depths of hades would a leader of a country intentionally raise prices on anything? (unless of course you're Obama and want to raise taxes on gasoline to artificially create demand for cleaner transportation... but who's counting right?)
And, at DirectorC... wow. Just wow. So every person who lives "in the middle of nowhere" is by default a moron? That in itself is moronic. I'm from a town of less than one thousand people, and I will go about any battle of wits you wish, my friend. Intelligence is in no way proportional to proximity to other humans.
As for Bush giving away our freedoms... I lament them. However, they were necessary. And to say that Bush took away more freedoms than any other President... Bullshit. That would be Roosevelt. The beginning of the progressive movement. Guess who's the current posterboy for progressivism. That's right... Obama. Trust me, if he gets what he wants, we will lose plenty of freedoms by the time he's out of office... if you don't know what I'm talking about, do your research on progressivism. It sounds nice. "We're all about progress! Even our name says so!" Well, like I said, do your research. All they are progressing toward is totalitarianism.

[JC316]

I agree with WileE. This statement pretty much just invalidates any opinion you might have. Just saying...

As for not believing in 9/11... theres so much that doesn't make sense? How about a government blowing up thier own citizens' trade centers for making sense eh? Makes plenty of sense, right?

Another misconception is that presidents create problems. No president has ever done anything to intentionally destroy his own country. Under Bush, gas prices rose to record highs. So it must be his fault right??? RIGHT??? Really, why in the depths of hades would a leader of a country intentionally raise prices on anything? (unless of course you're Obama and want to raise taxes on gasoline to artificially create demand for cleaner transportation... but

As for Bush giving away our freedoms... I lament them. However, they were necessary. And to say that Bush took away more freedoms than any other President... Bullshit. That would be Roosevelt. The beginning of the progressive movement. Guess who's the current posterboy for progressivism. That's right... Obama. Trust me, if he gets what he wants, we will lose plenty of freedoms by the time he's out of office... if you don't know what I'm talking about, do your research on progressivism. It sounds nice. "We're all about progress! Even our name says so!" Well, like I said, do your research. All they are progressing toward is totalitarianism.

Yeah, it does make plenty of sense for a government to blow up it's own building. It rallies the people together against a common enemy and allows them to invade a country under false pretenses. An oil rich country where we can setup our own government influence. Also, I just cant see someone taking over an airplane full of people with a fucking box cutter.

Bush is a Texas oil man, oil prices skyrocketing makes him an his buddies very rich men. It's all about the money man, always is and always will be.

Giving up freedom is necessary? BULL FUCKING SHIT! That isn't even remotely necessary. What did it really do for stopping terrorism? There hasn't been any more attacks... Oh wait, there are so few terrorist attacks anyway that doing nothing would have had the same outcome as giving the government Gestapo level powers.

Like I said, taking out a dictator is a great thing, but there was just too much lost IMO.

[Steevo]

If we were to follow the rules Bush put forth, we would have no personal freedom. Anyone could/would be subject to torture including innocent people.
It is the job of the US to dictate to other nations their laws, and operations.
All non-democratic nations need to be "freed" by any force needed.
Non-democratic means any nation that the average US southerner doesn't know about or could locate on the map.
The French are smelly whiners and hate the US, and probably need to be bombed.
Killing thousands of innocents, making a nation hate you, disrupting millions of lives is OK if you can shock and awe them with attacks.
Bill O'Reily is next to god.
Arresting people who say things about you, people who served in the military and speak at public places like a gym, and just mention they don't like you is OK.
Never allowing a meeting with members of the press that don't support your view is OK, they spread lies!
A 1-800 commie phone number to turn in your friends and family that don't share the opinion of the president is best.

[Papahyooie]

Bush is a texas oil man. Yes indeed he is. So why in hell would he want to go invade Iraq for oil? We invade iraq, force them to give up thier oil... prices drop and put Bush out of business. Good game, Bush. Riiiight. For anything to benifit Bush himself, it would be to get rid of foriegn oil as much as possible, not fight a war to preserve it.
If there actually was some huge conspiracy, they would have picked a much less vital target. The problem is, there's no way for me to argue against the conspiracy theories, because they're so full of stupid! I could say the fucking cookie monster was the one who did it, and who the hell could argue with me? If I willingly believe in something that is unbelievable... well most people call that insane. What about the people on the plane? The people who took over the plane? The pilots? Were they all in on it? "Okay sure, we'll die so you can go invade Iraq for oil. Go get em, Bush!" Sure. That happened. Watch a little less jesse Ventura, please. Controlled demolition? What about the security guards? Did they just turn a blind eye while bomb techs were setting up the thousands of pounds of explosives that would have taken? And on one of the higher floors at that? Did the employees in the building just walk by a couple thousand pounds of dynamite, C4, whatever, and say "Oh well its America, that's normal." Once again, if you willingly believe something unbelievable... well more power to ya. I will cease wasting my time. say hi to cookie monster for me.

As for giving up freedoms, I agree. It was bullshit. But you have NO idea what goes on behind the scenes. How many crisis have been averted that we had NO clue even existed. I would imagine that if we knew ten percent of what goes on, there would be mass hysteria. I don't like the idea of the government tapping my phones... but I'm not doing anything illegal, so why do I care. If I ever decide to start a revolution, i'll be more careful.

@ steevo, that's one step above just saying blahblahblahblah. Generalizations are useless to any discussion.

[SK-1]

Obama has to deal with a bubble that will never burst: the 'retarded Americans who live in the middle of nowhere but think they know everything' bubble.

Man, I guess you are one of those divisive Republicans?

Never realized zip code and IQ truly went hand in hand.

Thanks for the tip...

[Steevo]

@ steevo, that's one step above just saying blahblahblahblah. Generalizations are useless to any discussion.

That wasn't generalized. A man who served int he military was arrested after a person overheard him talking to a friend in a gym, he was arrested.

Wiretaps, keyword searcing to get your name on a list, unencrypted e-mail searcing, text message searcing, cell phone tracing. All the information companies have gathered about you used to be illegal for the US goverment to purchase without due cause, now they can purchase it at will to help formulate a reason to arrest anyone they can string together enough to start a case against anyone.

http://www.purchasingdata.com/index.asp?layout=sitePage&page_id=380000038
http://www.npd.com/corpServlet?nextpage=consumer-tracking-walmart-sams_s.html
http://www.unitymarketingonline.com/cms_luxury/luxury/luxury3.php
http://www.gfkps.com/ <70 nations plus the US
http://www.marketreaderpro.com/Market_Research_Data_Collection_Profile.asp
These people can tell you everything you have purchased, from what stores, using what cards, where you buy gas, your phone numbers, how many texts you send and to who, how many e-mails, what you search for on the internet, your IP address from your home computer, income, marital status, debts, medical history, taxes, everything. really everything.

The US goverment buys this. You took a class in computer security, and the cousin of a friend went to Iraq, you bought more goods between house payments, utilitys, cable, cell, internet, phone, car, insurance, food, online, and other purchases than you have in your bank accounts, and for income for the year. You raise a red flag, they arresst you, where is the money coming from? You won some from a bet? Thats illegal, so is part of your music, movies, and they pulled your internet records for your torrenting, you had at one time downloaded a set of pics that look like child porn. You deleted them of course, but look at your address, you are awful close to a school. Also who needs such a nice computer? And such a nice camera? You shopping records show you buy alot of candy........ you use alot of anonomizing proxies to upload encrypted files.......


There is a business on the east coast that has enogh servers to put google to shame, all they do is track every purchase you have ever made at what times, everythign about you. Who else do you want to know everything about you?

[Papahyooie]

I was talking about the "US southerner" cracks. Most everything in post 27 is directed at southern republicans. Generalizations all.

[Steevo]

I was talking about the "US southerner" cracks. Most everything in post 27 is directed at southern republicans. Generalizations all.

I'm from the south. I know the people, I have relatives, I have customers.

Southern people letting a nigger be president? They ought touh a shot dat coon.

Get it right, the average of well educated unopininated, non-racist, is well below average south of the Mason-Dixon line. Right now all the south has going for more intelligence is the kids growing up that are tired of grandad talk about the good old days where a nigger knew his place.


And I have personally heard all the above from people. Mostly in the south.

[JC316]

Bush is a texas oil man. Yes indeed he is. So why in hell would he want to go invade Iraq for oil? We invade iraq, force them to give up thier oil... prices drop and put Bush out of business. Good game, Bush. Riiiight. For anything to benifit Bush himself, it would be to get rid of foriegn oil as much as possible, not fight a war to preserve it.

What about the people on the plane? The people who took over the plane? The pilots? Were they all in on it? "Okay sure, we'll die so you can go invade Iraq for oil. Go get em, Bush!" Sure. That happened. Watch a little less jesse Ventura, please. Controlled demolition? What about the security guards? Did they just turn a blind eye while bomb techs were setting up the thousands of pounds of explosives that would have taken? And on one of the higher floors at that? Did the employees in the building just walk by a couple thousand pounds of dynamite, C4, whatever, and say "Oh well its America, that's normal." Once again, if you willingly believe something unbelievable... well more power to ya. I will cease wasting my time. say hi to cookie monster for me.

As for giving up freedoms, I agree. It was bullshit. But you have NO idea what goes on behind the scenes. How many crisis have been averted that we had NO clue even existed. I would imagine that if we knew ten percent of what goes on, there would be mass hysteria. I don't like the idea of the government tapping my phones... but I'm not doing anything illegal, so why do I care. If I ever decide to start a revolution, i'll be more careful.

@ steevo, that's one step above just saying blahblahblahblah. Generalizations are useless to any discussion.

Of course they aren't out the take the oil, as you said, it would drop the prices. But setting up a government that has US influence allows the US to control the output of it while still having it secured. Reduce production and prices go up.

A less vital target doesn't spawn as much public outrage, thus less support for invasion.

True patriots will do anything if brainwashed properly. Hell look at the kamikaze from Japan in WW2 and even the suicide bombers in Iraq. Are you really so naive that you don't believe that there are Americans that would do the same?

Security guards that make minimum wage, you think they would argue with a federal agency doing an inspection? They could even be plants setup by the government. As you said, we have no idea what goes on behind the scenes.

You don't like the idea that your phone could be illegally tapped, or you can be held without trial for being a suspected terrorist, but you can accept it. I am sure that they Jews accepted Hitler too. They didn't like it, but accepted it.

[SK-1]

Wait a minute, all those reasons are stupid!

" bush support a global war" this makes him a better leader?

Fighting a war that can't be won? Yeah real good use of resources.

Agreed. We should just ignore them... then they will just go away(u), like Hitler and all the other bad shit in history.

Just ignore evil...

Lets just all collectively roll over on our bellies and let the terr...oops extremest give us an extreme belly rub.

[Papahyooie]

I'm from the south. I know the people, I have relatives, I have customers.

Southern people letting a nigger be president? They ought touh a shot dat coon.

Get it right, the average of well educated unopininated, non-racist, is well below average south of the Mason-Dixon line. Right now all the south has going for more intelligence is the kids growing up that are tired of grandad talk about the good old days where a nigger knew his place.


And I have personally heard all the above from people. Mostly in the south.

I've heard all that too, as I'm from the south myself. However i would be hard pressed to say the majority of people believe like this. Sure, the vast majority behaved as such back when I lived in a small town, but that is again, a small town, and not many people (and therefore not the majority.)

@JC316. Well all I can say is, youre entitled to your own opinion, even if it is crazy. I find it hard to believe that the security guards at the world friggin trade center made minumum wage, that an entire planeload of people died for it (sure, patriots will do anything... for something they believe in. Not for oil) or any of the crackpot theories that are so far-fetched I'm surprised they ever materialized. I would say that you are the one who has been brainwashed. To believe something so far-fetched would take quite a bit of "convincing" for me. But hey if you believe it, more power to ya. As for accepting my phone being tapped, my phone isn't being tapped. I'm sure someone who believes in such conspiracy theories as above would be paranoid enough to believe thiers is. And so what if it is? I can say with total confidence that if our government maintains its current status quo, it will never affect me. And if it comes to a point where it might? Well then i'll stop using a phone. Phones aren't a human right. Hell if America gets bad enough, i'll leave, or unsubscribe from society. I have some extremist friends who live completely off the grid in the middle of a moderately sized city. No credit cards, no jobs, no drivers licenses, the only thing to identify them is a forwarding address and a social security number that hasn't been written down since they graduated high school (and fingerprints/DNA of course). And they absolutely LOVE it! If you want your privacy bad enough, you'll have it. It's all about what you're willing to accept, and everyone has different limits.

[JC316]

@JC316. Well all I can say is, youre entitled to your own opinion, even if it is crazy. I find it hard to believe that the security guards at the world friggin trade center made minumum wage, that an entire planeload of people died for it (sure, patriots will do anything... for something they believe in. Not for oil) or any of the crackpot theories that are so far-fetched I'm surprised they ever materialized. I would say that you are the one who has been brainwashed. To believe something so far-fetched would take quite a bit of "convincing" for me. But hey if you believe it, more power to ya. As for accepting my phone being tapped, my phone isn't being tapped. I'm sure someone who believes in such conspiracy theories as above would be paranoid enough to believe thiers is. And so what if it is? I can say with total confidence that if our government maintains its current status quo, it will never affect me. And if it comes to a point where it might? Well then i'll stop using a phone. Phones aren't a human right. Hell if America gets bad enough, i'll leave, or unsubscribe from society. I have some extremist friends who live completely off the grid in the middle of a moderately sized city. No credit cards, no jobs, no drivers licenses, the only thing to identify them is a forwarding address and a social security number that hasn't been written down since they graduated high school (and fingerprints/DNA of course). And they absolutely LOVE it! If you want your privacy bad enough, you'll have it. It's all about what you're willing to accept, and everyone has different limits.

An entire planeload wouldn't have to know, just the pilots. Not saying that I believe it, just that it's possible and pretty easy to do if you have the resources of the government.

I find it disturbing that you are willing to accept the official story with little proof. Just seems very odd to me that a bunch of terrorists can board a planeload of people, take it over with box cutters, bypass security protocols on the plane, including the gun that is kept in the cockpit of all planes, take over the complex systems of a passenger jet and fly it into the perfect spot to bring down a building that is designed to take plane hits in a worst case scenario.

[Kreij]

I find it disturbing that you are willing to accept the official story with little proof. Just seems very odd to me that a bunch of terrorists can ...

board a planeload of people
Not a planeload, just a few.

take it over with box cutters
Boxcutters were not a problem pre-911. You could take almost anything on a plane that was not an explosive.

bypass security protocols on the plane, including the gun that is kept in the cockpit of all planes
No guns in cockpit pre-911. They had to fight for it after 911. Still a contention issue. Not to mention that the cockpits were not secured in any reasonable fashion to prevent an armed intrusion.

take over the complex systems of a passenger jet and fly it into the perfect spot to bring down a building that is designed to take plane hits in a worst case scenario.

All they had to do was to be able to aim the plane at their target. Minimal training in flying a passenger jet would accomplish this. The buildings were never designed to take a direct hit from an airplane loaded with jet fuel that ignited on impact as no one thought of that scenario. The buildings actually did amazingly well given the structural damage on the upper floors.

Look at the parking garage bombing before 911. That should have been stopped too, but there was no precidence to stop every vehicle that entered the building.

Just my 2 cents.

[DrPepper]

The buildings were never designed to take a direct hit from an airplane loaded with jet fuel that ignited on impact as no one thought of that scenario. The buildings actually did amazingly well given the structural damage on the upper floors..

I'd heard they were designed to survive an impact with aircraft. A B-17 crashed into the empire state building back in the 30's I believe and it didn't fall. Also it didn't do amazingly well since it collapsed.

[DirectorC]

I'm sorry but the part about 'Bush believed in fighting a global war' in this article just made me think it was a complete joke. Seriously, fighting a never ending global war is a plus? Get the fuck out of here.

[El Fiendo]

I say we fly a 747 into a regular random building ourselves and see if it collapses 'regularly' or not. That way we can be certain if the terrorists were real back in 2001! Ingenious!

Having said that, I best hide before the party van shows up. I mean I'd evacuate it first but geez I still think they'd be pissed. 8(

[JC316]

I'd heard they were designed to survive an impact with aircraft. A B-17 crashed into the empire state building back in the 30's I believe and it didn't fall. Also it didn't do amazingly well since it collapsed.

Yeah, there was something on the history channel that said there is no way that plane brought that building down. Something about there was a 3 foot section that you would have to nail perfectly in order to bring it down.

As for the no gun in the cockpit, my uncle's best friend was an american airlines captain and he said otherwise. He claimed that there was a gun in every cockpit, loaded with hollow points so it couldn't rupture the hull. Now, I can guarantee that he was an actual pilot since I saw video proof, but I can't confirm the gun story.

[3991v]

I'm with JC on this one.

[FordGT90Concept]

The Empire State's design is far different from the World Trade Center 1/2 design. Still, I agree that there's way too much fishy about about the events from 9/11 from not allowing the NTSB to complete a thorough investigation, to mysterious aircraft near the Pentagon, to the 757 hitting the Pentagon doing far more damage than a jet hitting it should do, to the relatively controlled collapse of both towers, to proposed terrorists on the planes still being alive and well, to the rapid consfication of video and audio recordings of the events that unfolded, to no bodies being recovered at the Pennsylvania site, to the Pentagon being hit in the newest, most reenforced section of the Pentagon that was under construction at the time (few causalties). Hell, even the WTC towers weren't even close to full occupancy with the attack being so early in the morning.

There's too much there to be mere coincidence.

[DrPepper]

The Empire State's design is far different from the World Trade Center 1/2 design. Still, I agree that there's way too much fishy about about the events from 9/11 from not allowing the NTSB to complete a thorough investigation, to mysterious aircraft near the Pentagon, to the 757 hitting the Pentagon doing far more damage than a jet hitting it should do, to the relatively controlled collapse of both towers, to proposed terrorists on the planes still being alive and well, to the rapid consfication of video and audio recordings of the events that unfolded, to no bodies being recovered at the Pennsylvania site, to the Pentagon being hit in the newest, most reenforced section of the Pentagon that was under construction at the time (few causalties). Hell, even the WTC towers weren't even close to full occupancy with the attack being so early in the morning.

There's too much there to be mere coincidence.

I agree with that.

Also I think it would have been more awesome if they jackknifed the 747 through downtown New York then crashed into the statue of liberty.

[Papahyooie]

I find it disturbing that you are willing to accept the official story with little proof.

As opposed to accepting a conspiracy theory that has NO proof beyond observations made by people who have no experience in the field, and documentaries (shows/movies MADE to thrive on controversy, otherwise they wouldn't be interesting) which are unreputable at best. I don't care what a building is "designed" to withstand. Plenty of buildings "designed" to withstand earthquakes topple. Even the best engineer in the world cannot create something that will withstand something in any circumstance. Given how big an airliner is, how fast it's moving, and how much it weighs... I'm no expert but I would question anything that claimed to be able to stop it. Planes do tremendous amounts of damage to the sides of mountains. A humble, man-made, top-heavy structure can be expected to fare no better.
As for the rest, there were no air mashalls on the plane. Now if I were put into that situation, I would have taken a bullet to attempt to take the guys out... but I can't speak for anybody on the plane. Not to offend anyone, or slander the memories of those that died in the plane, but maybe they were just pussies. Plane and simple (get it?) I don't blame them for that.

The fact is, most people of note who claims it was a conspiracy, also claim to be an expert in every aspect. "This looked like a controlled demolition," when the person has no experience in demolition, physics, munitions, or ballistics. Perhaps the reason that it fell so smoothly (if it can be called that... imo, it can't) was because it was indeed built to withstand as much force as possible. "It did far more damage than it should have" (no i'm not quoting you, Ford) when the person has no experience in engineering, nor any access to the plans for either building. Everyone either claims to know something they don't, or just takes what every else says for granted.

I'll admit i'm biased. I knew someone who was on the plane. My study hall teacher's sister. She's dead. My girlfriend's brother was a firefighter, and went up there to help. Try telling either of them that what happened was fake, or staged. I promise you'll get more than you bargained for.

[DrPepper]

I'm not an expert but it looked like a pretty controlled fall to me.

[Steevo]

I have seen things from both sides, niether has shown total proof that it was US, or otherwise. There are the few slides from the camera on teh pentagon that show a object much smaller than a 747 hitting the side, plus thousands of gallons of jet fuel just don't disapper with no consequence.


On a side note, jet fuel is refined kerosene. Not super explosive, or flammable. You can throw a lit match into it and it will go out. I have tried it when I was a kid, we used to start bon fires with gasoline and kerosene, a couple gallons of kerosene on the logs, and a couple quarts of gasoline at the edge and a trail to start it with.

The WTC buildings were designed to take a aircraft hit, but not one of that magnatude from what I have seen, but the damages were caused more by the fire than from the hit. That however leaves much to question, if the fire burned the supports, UP and they eventually collapsed then why did the rest of the building fall down when it was designed to and was bearign such a load?


Ford, I agree that the events were very fishy at the Pentagon too. For exampel what about the hundreds of peopel traveling the road? Woudn't they speak of a 757 flying close overhead, in a arc that is impossible for such a large plane at that altitude and speed and load? Then the pilot who was supposed to be a poor pilot by accoutns of all teh schoold he went to now suddenly makes a perfect turn with a 757 at 530 MPH in close quarters "like a fighter jet" But only after they lost communications with the plane, managerd to turn the transponder off, and watched it fly into a restricted area? No one mentions the plane circling as was reported either. A woman on board when it was her husbands birthday, a man who defended GW Bush for the ellection and won, was ellected by GW Bush http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Olson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Olson

[Papahyooie]

I'm not an expert but it looked like a pretty controlled fall to me.


in a arc that is impossible for such a large plane at that altitude and speed and load

Perfect examples.

As for what else steevo said about the supports burning up and why did it not bear the load it was designed to: The building was designed to bear the load of the rest of the building (ie whatever's above it) but multiply that load by the inertia provided by the acceleration of gravity (it's FALLING!) plus the shockwave that had to have happened because of the plane hitting it... I find it hard to believe that anything could withstand it.
As for people on the ground, they only saw the plane for a few seconds. It's travelling at hundreds of miles per hour. Why is it so hard to believe that by the time they knew what was happening it was already over?
As for the pilot being terrible, that just reinforces the idea that he probably wasn't flying the plane. A terrorist was. A person who didnt give a fuck about the fact that they might not make such a sharp bank. And of fucking course they turned the comms and tracking off. If you're gonna crash into the freaking pentagon, you probably don't want to broadcast the fact.

[DrPepper]

How am I a perfect example I said I wasn't an expert ...

I mearly observed it looked controlled. I don't need to be an expert to observe two things and be able to find similarities. Also why did that other trade centre building collapse much later ?

[MRCL]

You can fly an Airliner like a fighter jet, it allows insane turns. Reason why you never see them doing those insane turns is because every passenger would get sick immediately.

Also, transponder off = you're virtually invisible.

[MT Alex]

The sinking of the U.S.S Maine (Spanish American War,) and the Gulf of Tonkin incedent (Vietnam) are both prime examples of fake attacks to garner support for unpopular wars. In the first case elements from the US actually blew up our own ship and blamed the Cubans, and in the latter it was declassified in 2005 that there was most likely no Vietnamese ships involved in the supposed attack on our destroyers. Governments, including our own, have a long history of treachery and deceit to get what they want.

[El Fiendo]

You can fly an Airliner like a fighter jet, it allows insane turns. Reason why you never see them doing those insane turns is because every passenger would get sick immediately.

Also, transponder off = you're virtually invisible.

Lol, and now for our descent we're going to black out half of the passenger deck, and cover the floor in vomit.

[SK-1]

If we were to follow the rules Bush put forth, we would have no personal freedom.
Well there goes our freedom...(toast)

The Obama Administration is vindicating Bush antiterror policy.
This is ORSM stuff... Read it and weep....I guess.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704022804575042112185849380.html?m od=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion
As long as George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were responsible for keeping Americans safe, Democrats could pander to the U.S. and European left's anti-antiterror views at little political cost. But now that they are responsible, American voters are able to see what the left really has in mind, and they are saying loud and clear that they prefer the Cheney method.

[JC316]

I'll admit i'm biased. I knew someone who was on the plane. My study hall teacher's sister. She's dead. My girlfriend's brother was a firefighter, and went up there to help. Try telling either of them that what happened was fake, or staged. I promise you'll get more than you bargained for.

Sorry to hear.

The sinking of the U.S.S Maine (Spanish American War,) and the Gulf of Tonkin incedent (Vietnam) are both prime examples of fake attacks to garner support for unpopular wars. In the first case elements from the US actually blew up our own ship and blamed the Cubans, and in the latter it was declassified in 2005 that there was most likely no Vietnamese ships involved in the supposed attack on our destroyers. Governments, including our own, have a long history of treachery and deceit to get what they want.

Yeah, for the most part, the ends always justify the means for anyone looking for power or support.

[Papahyooie]

How am I a perfect example I said I wasn't an expert ...

Sorry, DrPepper, I misunderstood. I read intense sarcasm into that, which apparently wasn't there. My bad. (toast)

[DrPepper]

Sorry, DrPepper, I misunderstood. I read intense sarcasm into that, which apparently wasn't there. My bad. (toast)

Nah it's fine I guessed you might have read it wrong.

[yogurt_21]

Our is a pussy, he likes being friends with other presidents/prime ministers.

http://www.geenstijl.nl/archives/images/balkiezoenobama.jpg
http://www.digischool.nl/kleioscoop/balkenende.jpg
http://www.euronet.nl/users/pcmversch/beelden/Balkenende-potter.jpeg

I'm so proud he is our leader.

your leader looks like dwight from "The Office"

http://img.coxnewsweb.com/B/06/87/66/image_2366876.jpg

[Magibeg]

The reasons why I thought this post was a parody.

1. Bush never apologised for his country
Knowing humility is an intelligent trait. Being able to recognize past mistakes can make for a brighter future.

2. Bush identified and confronted evil
Good and evil, black and white, are both very primitive ways of thinking. In the real world there is a lot of grey.

3. Bush made the advance of freedom a key component of his agenda
Pretty sure he introduced the Patriot Act, warrentless wire tapping, and prisons outside of the legal system. That being said Obama hasn't fixed those issues but Bush was the one who introduced them.

4. Bush defended national sovereignty
Realizing the world consists of more than just 1 country is probably a good thing. Furthermore engaging in international co-operation is usually a good thing. While i wouldn't say national sovereignty is a bad thing there needs to be acknowledgment that there are international issues which are more complex than just a hand full of countries.

5. Bush believed in the Special Relationship
I'm pretty sure in the last point you made it appear like a negative trait that Obama was building bonds with large international bodies. But it's ok apparently to form a special bond with a single country?

6. Bush cultivated key allies
Bush was probably one of the least popular US leaders of all time on the world stage.

Obama on the other hand..
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=8155223&page=1


7. Bush understood the importance of missile defence
I don't have a large amount of knowledge on this particular subject but the military budgets between the countries is almost laughable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

8. Bush believed in fighting a global war
The idea of a global war spanning decades doesn't sound like a particularly good idea. While of course you have to defend your country from those that want to destroy it on the grand scheme of things America would be better off with a war on cigarettes, which kill 440,000 per year.
http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/s/smoking/deaths.htm

9. Bush did not compromise US security
Claiming that Obama is weakening US security is interesting given that the US is now locked up tighter than it has ever been. Guantanamo Bay is nothing more than a concentration camp. For wanting to be a beacon of freedom there certainly is a strong trend away from freedom.

10. Bush did not send mixed messages in the face of the enemy
I wouldn't say Barrack Obama is sending mixed messages. He made it clear he doesn't want the US to be leaving large numbers of troops in the middle east indefinitely but he realizes that in order to maintain stability there needs to be a temporary increase. As for months deciding if he should send more troops or not, that's a good thing. It means he's trying to make an informed decision. Perhaps if President Bush took a similar approach you wouldn't be at war under false pretenses.

[Kreij]

I'm not really sure why people are comparing Obama to Bush.
Bush is no longer President. They are two completely different people with different ideas on how things should be done.
Obama is new to the scene, let's see how it pans out.
If he is as bad as some think, it will become obvious. If not, that too will show.

That being said, the asshats in Congress have got to go, and the sooner the better.

[FordGT90Concept]

He's over 1/4 done with his term--not new anymore.

This healthcare bullshit hasn't hit the fan yet. Expect rates for pretty much everything to go up at least some in response to this due to increased taxes on businesses.

[WhiteLotus]

I don't think this healthcare business will fully kick in for a year or two yet for you guys. Still plenty of time to gather the masses and protest if you find enough like minded people.