Quote:
Originally Posted by Indy Coug
WRONG. I believe that the reforms and improvements to our intelligence and enforcement agencies under Bush will serve us better in the short and long term. If Obama agrees (however unlikely that might be) that those were appropriate measures, then I'll be more than happy to credit him for his judgment.
If Clinton had done the same thing 3 years earlier, I would be more than willing to admit he did something right.
It's not a partisanhip issue, it's an issue of what is the right thing to do. You're coming off more partisan than anyone right now, DDD.
|
Better as measured how? The only thing you can point to is the lack of terrorist attacks on our soil.
I am happy there have been no terrorist attacks on our soil since 9/11, but I don't see why the lack of attacks is because of Bush.
There is nothing partisan about that. Next year at this time, I wont attribute the lack of attacks to any special thing Obama has done. Keeping our country free from attacks is a great accomplishment, but since pretty much all of our US presidents have done it, I dont see anything extraordinary about Bush's actions.
I forget, though, that this is a group of McCain lovers who are impressed with his security creditials...he sits on committees that decide pensions, for example. So no wonder everyone is stoked that Bush formed more committees. Committees keep up safe!