Dubya established the largest marine sanctuary in the world. That's a big one . . . but its just about it.
I'm no Iraq war cheerleader. But here you go, since you threw the glove down. A moderate movement within Islamist circles is starting to gain momentum and preach against terrorism as a legitimate tactic or weapon in jihad. That is happening as a direct result of the frontal assault on salafist jihadists (or choose your own term - maybe Mr. Moore's "freedom fighters"?) that is ongoing. If this moderate movement gains momentum, it will be a major strategic gain globally and will have been brought about by the policies of the administration. At a cost. And that cost is NOT insignificant. But all "gains" in war come at a cost. That's not a conservative view. That's a world view based on news from the NY Times and Washington Post. I'm sure you agree - they don't exactly have the President's back... And, no, I'm neither a Republican, nor did I vote for the President. Stop watching John Stewart and Bill Mahr. Stop listening to Limbaugh and Savage. Read beyond the front page. Read books with footnotes and references. Stop hyperventilating.
From the Jamestown Organization - an unbiased terrorism watch group. Mission statement here. Much, much more here. Correct. If we surrender in the next year or so, snatching defeat from the jaws of "victory" (defined here in terms of irregular warfare, not the Japanese surrender ceremony on the USS Missourri or the President's dumb little carrier landing "Mission Accomplished" photo-op), then the bad guys win and we've sacrificed blood and treasure for nothing - all because some people hate the President. And the Vietnam generation and their defeatist contemporary wannabes will have successfully generated their own decade of Vietnam shame and self loathing. Seems like a nice trade. Well, then I'm surprised you hadn't heard about Sayyed Imam. BTW, your dismissive use of "chief" does nothing for your credibility. FWIW.
I meant no harm, I use chief all the time, and not just with people I disagree with, because we disagree doesn't mean we have to dislike each other or not be civil. If I seemed dismissive I apologize. BTW, I thought your comment about "Stop hperventilating" condesending, and originally made a comment, but removed it.
Yeah, it is sort of condescending - one of my standard lines when I think folks are just buying into TV media junk. Apologies.
Kurds in the N. just want to take their oil and secede as soon as the Americans leave, they can wait 20 years if they have to. Big part of the problem is Iraq was genetically engineered into existence at the end of WWI by the Brits, no regard for is population content or survivability in the long run. One might think the Shia majority will win out in Iraq, maybe become an Iranian puppet. The Saudi's do not want that to happen. They liked having Iraq under Sunni control, since they are Sunni, and a buffer from the Shia in Iran. Saudi is telling the US they don't want an Iranian surrogate Iraqi state on their border. Saudi is our best ME ally, so we soldier on. Saudi's do not want to see a Sunni bloodbath at the hands of vengeful Shia. US has its hands full. Folks say, hey we've stayed in Japan, Germany, Korea for 50 years. We weren't losing 20 people a month policing a civil war between religious fundamentalists. Bush I called it right, Bush II = big mistake. This was entirely known in 1991. We don't know if we can engineer a working democracy in Iraq and we don't know if we can tamp out a civil war between the 3 factions if we stay 20 or 50 years. We're gonna run the experiment, at a cost of 20 soldiers a month, and $12 Billion a month. Mighty expensive experiment, IMO. Did the surge work, or new tactics, or did we just take a cease fire to reorganize the forces? It's heating up there again. All done without taxes, run up the deficit, drive down the dollar, gasoline gets $1 per gallon boost from this. We use 400 million gallons a day, so an indirect tax of $400 million dollars per day, or equivalent $150 Billion annual tax increase, but instead of paid to Washington for the benefit of the american people, its paid directly to BIG OIL, to ballon their bonus and stock option bonanza.
Factually, the market started collapsing under Clinton's watch in the second quarter of 2000... I know, I was there... unfortunately so was a bunch of my money. But who's counting, right? The piece of the equation we always seem to find a reason to neglect is the migration of Baby Boomers (those born 1946-1952) through each decade. There has never been a group this size, representing 27% of the population, who have had such a dramatic effect on economics. This group consists of the highest income earners ever, the highest spenders ever, who started feeling their oats during Reagan as they went from their 30's to their 40's. During Clinton, they peaked, as the highest earning years and highest spending years are households headed by males who are 45-47 years old. At about 48-50, their spending starts turning to saving. The house is bought, the kids are finishing college (if not done), the boomers spend their money on trips, vacations, perhaps a second home, mostly self-indulgence stuff... but the hard goods purchases start to wind down. They were also the biggest tax payers. It's now 2008 and they are winding down. The economy is feeling their absence. It's going to be another 12 to 15 years before a group this size reaches their 40's. This is why American corporations are looking overseas for new business. This is why Phillip Morris is spending 1/3rd of their ad budget selling cigarettes to the Chinese. (..have no idea why I just said that...). Anyway, we are looking at a slowed economy dead in the eye. Economically, Clinton's timing as President couldn't have been better... as was Reagan's stint. Now, instead of looking at who are the new consumers who will drive economic stability, we move to blaming the economy on the war effort. We have bigger fish to fry. Whoever gets the nod will have their hands full.
Jimmy Carter has to be happy about the possibility of having Obama or H. Clinton as President. He's virtually assured of no longer being listed as the worst President in the history of the United States. Some of the Presidents were in office for two terms and their administrations differed considerably between terms. I think some may have liked William Jefferson Clinton in the first term but despised Slick Willy during his last four years. Others probably liked how Bush "W" handled 911 but got tired of a drawn out war because our culture expects instant results. Considering everything, Ronald Reagan is probably our best President from the last 50 years and toward the top of the all-time list as well. How about a poll on the ugliest children...Amy Carter?...Chelsea Clinton? :nope:
