So then you agree with Obama security and terrorism policy? Because if you do, you have to admit Bush was right because Obama is doing pretty much the same.
Common sense would lead one to believe that Obama didn't have access to intelligence that a president has and once he did, realized it would be against our best interests to not follow the current course of action against our enemies.
I doubt national security had much to do with his continuation of Bush policies. I see it as expanding central government powers, and Obama would be the least likely president to give up any powers he inherited from his predecessors.
come on dude....you're killin me.
Obamas policies were continuing bush before any of those events.
Just admit it, bush did the right thing.
Thanks for displaying even more of your ignorance (and personal attacks). You need to study up on the 80 percent of the Patriot Act which benefits the protection of America.
Not a surprise that you RAGE! on about something of which you know nothing.
--
BlackBush is just as wrong as Bush but as I've said 100x Democrats cannot be an opposition party to security/war/outsourcing/oil/wallstreet/insurance/pharma oligarchy, because Democrats are as dependent as Republicans on corporate interest groups for campaign funding. Your $20 Obama tshirt aint shit.
His Holy Shit moment - "Bush was right and we need to continue to stay the course."
Bush was wrong. Unfortunately Obama is just as wrong.
Of all the disappointments in the Obama presidency I have to say the biggest one is his continuation of the Bush War on Terror.
I think it's also a public perception problem...and the fact that Democrats, even when they are IN POWER, seem to not be able to locate their collective spine.
As a liberal, I'm constantly pissed off that Democrats refuse to stand up to Republicans waving around phrases like "support our troops", "fight terrorism", "Jesus", "freedom", etc, etc, without telling them to STFU and stop being such flaming hypocrites.
It's not a funding issue at all. Politicians simply CAN'T oppose a security policy, ANY security policy, because it would mean political suicide if something bad happened and they were on the record opposing a security measure. It doesn't matter if the measure is effective, if it is worth the cost...the voters are too stupid to understand the difference. All someone's opponent has to do is show grainy terrorism related video and have an ominous voice over saying so-and-so voted against the Patriot Protection for Freedom Act and the voters will flock to the polls to support the new guy.
We LOVE to bash politicians in this country, but honestly we get the representatives we deserve...because we as voters are largely complete morons.
And I would say it is the ONLY thing he has done right.
Cruel and Unusual Punishment.
Yup, but I see it just a tad differently. Politics, as we all know or should know, is the art of the possible. In order to marshal whatever political capital he had in support of his many domestic initiatives, he decided to retreat from and protect his "terrorism" flank from Republican attack and cover himself in the flag.
Given the ambitions of his domestic program and left with SO much to address domestically after 8 years of President Cheney, he prioritized.
It's done all the time in politics. Politics is the art of the possible.
It was cynical, but absolutely necessary. Try to fight on too many fronts at once politically, and you'd lose on them all. As it is, Obama has had a herculean task post Cheney/Bush, and he and his party will suffer for not magically making it ALL right in just 2 short years in 2010, and maybe also in 2012.
Never overestimate the collective intelligence and attention span of the American electorate!
And, wolf, you eminently sane and substantive poster, you, I have no major beef with you, but still would like to point out that there is no cow in kowtow.