Quote: Stewie wrote in post #59

---

Quote: musiclady wrote in post #56

---

W-GIRL - I've been amazed at how many people have forgotten the sheer terror after 9/11. If anyone has forgotten, just watch any documentary.

Nothing like that had ever happened before, so everything was uncharted territory.

In addition, the administration knew a whole lot more than we as citizens did. The threats were enormous and daily. We were in continued, extreme danger.

As you said, it's really easy from the outside, or the next day, to make accusations.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice...........ALL patriots..........believe they did what they had to do to keep us safe.

And the absence of further attack is, for me, proof that they succeeded.

Everyone involved has said that they did what they thought best to keep America from being destroyed. When you think of what COULD have happened afterward, and realize that it DIDN'T happen, you get a different perspective on the blame game.

---

I am 100% with you on this. Thanks for posting it. I still don't understand the selective amnesia of so many people--and I am talking about real life folks, not just posters. Our country was under attack and we were all scared to death at the time, waiting for the foot to fall again. The Monday morning quarterbacking has become so commonplace and accepted, its refreshing to know there are at least a few people left who appreciate the measures that were so successful in keeping this country safe afterwards.

---

Quote: The_Nevadan wrote in post #58

---

Quote: Weird Tolkienish Figure wrote in post #53

---

Quote: W-Girl wrote in post #52

---

Quote: Weird Tolkienish Figure wrote in post #51

---

Look I like Bush as a person, and I think he did love his country, more than most liberals. He was certainly better than Obama and Gore (if elected).

That being said, I can't imagine a conservative looking at his term objectively and honestly and not being disappointed.

Just as you have a right to your opinion, we have a right to ours.

---

ABSOLUTELY, and I am giving my opinion !!

Our main objective, after 9/11, was the WAR ON TERROR !!

HOW SOON WE FORGET !!

---

Right and the amnesty push, the pork barrel spending... how did that help the war on terror?

We do have the right to expect our leaders to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time, correct?

At the end of Bush's term, we managed to turn the country so against the GOP that they elected a complete fraud like Obama, purely on his liberalism and the color of his skin, and Democrats with a near total control of the government.

When just in 2005 the GOP had control of both houses of Congress.

No it's far from being only Bush's fault but damn if he didn't help.

Like it or not, it's not all the liberal media's fault.

If you can't see this, then we may be in worse trouble than I realized.

Sorry to be harsh but that's my $.02

---

On point. W hunkered down and let the MSM crucify him everynight without defending his actions. The MSM is responsible for the "image" of w in his last term. Can't say if it would of made any difference but not defending his programs etc was the failure that enabled the MSM to engineer inflcting 0 on us.

BTW I am going out on a limb here - but I have observed (as would be expected) that it mostly females believe W did a good job "protecting" us and is a "good man". Most detractors of W are male.

I continue to believe and will never change my mind that the TSA and the Patriot Acts were BIG mistakes and will only lead to more tyranny. Every president does something that will be abused be those that follow. I just think W really accelerated it by his actions. He could of stopped or softened Congresses rush to do something. That is where the male perspective comes into play. No guy likes to see another guy sit in the corner and get the crap beat out of him without raise the figuritive finger in defense.

All of that said. I still respect those here with different opinions. Clearly this isn't TBL. I haven't seen W called names or stupid - just condemed to hell. That is positive moevment in my book.

---

Quote: FP123 wrote in post #40

---

Quote: musiclady wrote in post #36

---

...

Which is why I had trouble with the gov't policies set up under Bush. I trusted Bush to handle them, but knew they would be abused under any liberal (or Nixonian) President, which is why I was so afraid when a Marxist America-hater was elected, and am more afraid now that he has been reelected.

As for Clinton, I was plenty old when he was President, and I despised what he did to the Presidency and the country. That's part of the reason I was so thankful for the respect that George W. Bush always had...........almost a reverance..........for the office of President, and how he handled himself as President.

He didn't abuse it.

---

I don't want to be picking at nits here (so don't feel compelled to answer if you don't want to), but you can't have it both ways.

If you "had trouble with the gov't policies set up under Bush" then why do you give him a pass? If you "knew they would be abused under any liberal (or Nixonian) President" then what is his excuse?

Did you think that he was just too ignorant or ill-informed to know any better? You knew, I knew, most of us here all "knew." Why didn't he?

If you don't call all of those bad decisions that did great damage to this country "abuse (of his office)," what do you call it?

Do you merely give him a pass because he spoke highly of our military and conducted a war that you approve of? Does he get extra points because he professes to be a Christian? (And don't take that the wrong way, the question comes from a born again believer of 30+ years. I just don't overlook severe damage caused by anyone, even those that profess to share my faith.) Does that excuse the rest of it?

I'm certainly not trying to give you a hard time here, but I simply can't understand how you recognize the great damage that his Presidency has wrought, but let him off the hook because you believe that he is a "good man."

---

Quote: Palinista wrote in post #44

---

The TSA was signed into law as part of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act on November 19, 2001.

I see President George W. Bush's grab for power and rush to "DO SOMETHING!" in November of 2001 in the same way that I look at President Obama's response to the Sandy Hook shooting. Never let a crisis go to waste.

I voted for George W. Bush in 2000.

I was in the hospital on election day in 2004 and unable to vote.

---

Quote: musiclady wrote in post #62

---

Quote: The_Nevadan wrote in post #58

---

Quote: Weird Tolkienish Figure wrote in post #53

---

Quote: W-Girl wrote in post #52

---

Quote: Weird Tolkienish Figure wrote in post #51

---

Look I like Bush as a person, and I think he did love his country, more than most liberals. He was certainly better than Obama and Gore (if elected).

That being said, I can't imagine a conservative looking at his term objectively and honestly and not being disappointed.

Just as you have a right to your opinion, we have a right to ours.

---

ABSOLUTELY, and I am giving my opinion !!

Our main objective, after 9/11, was the WAR ON TERROR !!

HOW SOON WE FORGET !!

---

Right and the amnesty push, the pork barrel spending... how did that help the war on terror?

We do have the right to expect our leaders to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time, correct?

At the end of Bush's term, we managed to turn the country so against the GOP that they elected a complete fraud like Obama, purely on his liberalism and the color of his skin, and Democrats with a near total control of the government.

When just in 2005 the GOP had control of both houses of Congress.

No it's far from being only Bush's fault but damn if he didn't help.

Like it or not, it's not all the liberal media's fault.

If you can't see this, then we may be in worse trouble than I realized.

Sorry to be harsh but that's my $.02

---

On point. W hunkered down and let the MSM crucify him everynight without defending his actions. The MSM is responsible for the "image" of w in his last term. Can't say if it would of made any difference but not defending his programs etc was the failure that enabled the MSM to engineer inflcting 0 on us.

BTW I am going out on a limb here - but I have observed (as would be expected) that it mostly females believe W did a good job "protecting" us and is a "good man". Most detractors of W are male.

I continue to believe and will never change my mind that the TSA and the Patriot Acts were BIG mistakes and will only lead to more tyranny. Every president does something that will be abused be those that follow. I just think W really accelerated it by his actions. He could of stopped or softened Congresses rush to do something. That is where the male perspective comes into play. No guy likes to see another guy sit in the corner and get the crap beat out of him without raise the figuritive finger in defense.

All of that said. I still respect those here with different opinions. Clearly this isn't TBL. I haven't seen W called names or stupid - just condemed to hell. That is positive moevment in my book.

---

My husband admires President Bush as much as I do, without question, and he is a hardcore conservative.........and very, very male.

We both have two bumper stickers still on our cars, one saying "I MISS HAVING A PRO-LIFE PRESIDENT" and right beneath it, "THANK YOU, PRESIDENT BUSH," and we get many, many people, male and female who say they love our bumper stickers, or just give us a simple thumbs up.

As for President Bush's willingness to let himself be abused, agree with it or not, that was due, not to a lack of masculinity, but to his reverence for the office of the Presidency, his need to do his job, and his faith in Jesus Christ.

I, as a feisty, argumentative female, hated that quality in him. I wanted him to punch back............HARD. I screamed at him to fight the lies. But again, both my husband and I respected him for being true to his own principles.

History will judge him, and he knows it. But more importantly, God will judge him, and he knows that too.

---

Quote: The_Nevadan wrote in post #65

---

Quote: musiclady wrote in post #62

---

Quote: The_Nevadan wrote in post #58

---

Quote: Weird Tolkienish Figure wrote in post #53

---

Quote: W-Girl wrote in post #52

---

Quote: Weird Tolkienish Figure wrote in post #51

---

Look I like Bush as a person, and I think he did love his country, more than most liberals. He was certainly better than Obama and Gore (if elected).

That being said, I can't imagine a conservative looking at his term objectively and honestly and not being disappointed.

Just as you have a right to your opinion, we have a right to ours.

---

ABSOLUTELY, and I am giving my opinion !!

Our main objective, after 9/11, was the WAR ON TERROR !!

HOW SOON WE FORGET !!

---

Right and the amnesty push, the pork barrel spending... how did that help the war on terror?

We do have the right to expect our leaders to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time, correct?

At the end of Bush's term, we managed to turn the country so against the GOP that they elected a complete fraud like Obama, purely on his liberalism and the color of his skin, and Democrats with a near total control of the government.

When just in 2005 the GOP had control of both houses of Congress.

No it's far from being only Bush's fault but damn if he didn't help.

Like it or not, it's not all the liberal media's fault.

If you can't see this, then we may be in worse trouble than I realized.

Sorry to be harsh but that's my $.02

---

On point. W hunkered down and let the MSM crucify him everynight without defending his actions. The MSM is responsible for the "image" of w in his last term. Can't say if it would of made any difference but not defending his programs etc was the failure that enabled the MSM to engineer inflcting 0 on us.

BTW I am going out on a limb here - but I have observed (as would be expected) that it mostly females believe W did a good job "protecting" us and is a "good man". Most detractors of W are male.

I continue to believe and will never change my mind that the TSA and the Patriot Acts were BIG mistakes and will only lead to more tyranny. Every president does something that will be abused be those that follow. I just think W really accelerated it by his actions. He could of stopped or softened Congresses rush to do something. That is where the male perspective comes into play. No guy likes to see another guy sit in the corner and get the crap beat out of him without raise the figuritive finger in defense.

All of that said. I still respect those here with different opinions. Clearly this isn't TBL. I haven't seen W called names or stupid - just condemed to hell. That is positive moevment in my book.

---

My husband admires President Bush as much as I do, without question, and he is a hardcore conservative.........and very, very male.

We both have two bumper stickers still on our cars, one saying "I MISS HAVING A PRO-LIFE PRESIDENT" and right beneath it, "THANK YOU, PRESIDENT BUSH," and we get many, many people, male and female who say they love our bumper stickers, or just give us a simple thumbs up.

As for President Bush's willingness to let himself be abused, agree with it or not, that was due, not to a lack of masculinity, but to his reverence for the office of the Presidency, his need to do his job, and his faith in Jesus Christ.

I, as a feisty, argumentative female, hated that quality in him. I wanted him to punch back............HARD. I screamed at him to fight the lies. But again, both my husband and I respected him for being true to his own principles.

History will judge him, and he knows it. But more importantly, God will judge him, and he knows that too.

---

I think you missed my point - some. I was speaking in generalites. You mentioned the flame wars on FR about W. almost unversally gender driven.

We agree to disagree. OK?

---

Zitat

---

FR was an ugly place for a woman.

---

Yes it was and so was TBL.

Quote: musiclady wrote in post #64

---

Quote: Palinista wrote in post #44

---

The TSA was signed into law as part of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act on November 19, 2001.

I see President George W. Bush's grab for power and rush to "DO SOMETHING!" in November of 2001 in the same way that I look at President Obama's response to the Sandy Hook shooting. Never let a crisis go to waste.

I voted for George W. Bush in 2000.

I was in the hospital on election day in 2004 and unable to vote.

---

Wow.

I completely disagree with your parallel with evil, dictator-wannabe, hard-core radical, anti-gun, anti-American Obama's abuse of children to further a long term progressive anti-gun, anti-American agenda, and President Bush's team's decision to protect Americans from further terrorist attack after 9/11.

Not only not in the same ballpark.

Not in the same universe.

---

Quote: steph wrote in post #67

---

Zitat

---

FR was an ugly place for a woman.

---

Yes it was and so was TBL.

---

It sure was.

And the ugliness was apparently sanctioned by the owner.

Bad stuff.

btw, thanks again for this place.

It is difficult to have a conversation without certain parameters being in agreement. To the best of my knowledge, the only one here that has even met GWB is TheNevadan. I don't know how in depth this one time meeting with GWB was, maybe TN can elaborate if he so wishes. Given, that, unless people are willing to speak about GWB and his policies purely in terms of what he did and said, it is pointless. No one here knows anything about what is in heart, his motivations, nor his personal beliefs -- beyond either what they have read/heard others say about him, or from their own observations of his words and deeds. If one is going to argue along the terms of him being a "good man" it will always be unproductive. I submit that no one here knows if he is a "good man," "bad man," or something in between (which I suspect is the case).

Don't we all scream in outrage when we hear 0bama say over and over: "I support the 2nd Amendment." We say, "BS, look at what he is doing, not saying." We would argue that anyone that just goes by what 0bama says, versus what he does, is a {fill-in-the-blank}. Consistency informs us that we should also apply the same standard to items like "No Child Left Behind," "Medicare Part D," and the "War on Terror." What GWB and others may have said about these things should not cloud the facts surrounding the actions. The rightness or wrongness of issues like these must be debated on principle, not which party introduced and enacted them.

In my mind any discussion of this nature should be focused on Principles and whether or not the actions supported or destroyed the Principles. If we can all agree (as Conservatives) that growing government beyond its Constitutional bounds is wrong (and even more heinous when numerous Constitutional Rights of citizens are blatantly destroyed), then we should be able to agree upon that regardless who (or what party) is doing it. The DHS, TSA, Patriot Act, etc. aren't all violating that principle because 0bama-Biden are at the helm, they were wrong and violated that Principle from the onset, when GWB-Cheney were at the helm. If we can't all be honest about that, there isn't much hope for fruitful conversation.

Numerous times on this site we see the words of our Founders posted, in this thread we've seen a couple versions of Franklin's "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." Do we believe this to be true or not? Or do we wink at it and say "well this is different, we were frightened!" This is a Principle, not a feel good idea to be discarded when convenient.

And what about Free Market Principles? Do they only apply at our convenience? Is it OK to support big government over-reach and intrusion because we "feel" that we want it, in some cases? What I am talking about here? How about the fact that "security" inherent in and surrounding a private entities service operation should be the responsibility of that private entity, not the federal government. If some airlines and airports decide that they wish to have "enhanced" security as a benefit to their customers and those customers are willing to pay for it, more power to them. If another airline decides to deploy limited security arrangements and thus charge less for their transport services, more power to them. The traveling public will decide how much they are willing to pay for enhanced security features, some will choose the full set of options, others will decide to "risk" more and pay less. Immediately someone will say "But what happens if someone blows up a plane from the low security airline?" The simple answer is that damage will occur and lives will be lost. If it keeps happening, the free market will decide that airline should no longer be in service. (As an aside, our society has warped to the point where loss of life has become something that must be avoided at all costs. That is why so much government overreach is accepted under the bogus principle of "if we can save one life, it is worth it!" Sounds familiar, I heard this earlier this week!)

Maybe we need another thread to discuss Principles without the color of particular "personalities" distorted the issues and discussions?

BTW, maybe some folks have forgotten:

Zitat

---

The next year, months before the Oklahoma City bombing took place, Biden introduced another bill called the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995. It previewed the 2001 Patriot Act by allowing secret evidence to be used in prosecutions, expanding the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and wiretap laws, creating a new federal crime of "terrorism" that could be invoked based on political beliefs, permitting the U.S. military to be used in civilian law enforcement, and allowing permanent detection of non-U.S. citizens without judicial review. The Center for National Security Studies said the bill would erode "constitutional and statutory due process protections" and would "authorize the Justice Department to pick and choose crimes to investigate and prosecute based on political beliefs and associations."

Biden himself draws parallels between his 1995 bill and its 2001 cousin. "I drafted a terrorism bill after the Oklahoma City bombing. And the bill John Ashcroft sent up was my bill," he said when the Patriot Act was being debated, according to the New Republic, which described him as "the Democratic Party's de facto spokesman on the war against terrorism."

Biden's chronology is not accurate: the bombing took place in April 1995 and his bill had been introduced in February 1995. But it's true that Biden's proposal probably helped to lay the groundwork for the Bush administration's Patriot Act.

---

[ http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10024163-38.html ]

Also:

Zitat

---

When the Patriot Act was introduced in 2001, then-Senator Joseph Biden boasted, "I drafted a terrorism bill after the Oklahoma City bombing. And the bill John Ashcroft sent up was my bill." True enough, the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995 bears strong enough similarities to the Patriot Act that we could be forgiven for thinking it was dusted off, polished and reintroduced when the moment arose. That 1995 bill was explicitly targeted at Americans in a decade full of fears about the "antigovernment movement."

---

[ http://reason.com/blog/2012/08/22/ruby-ridge-when-many-officials-realized ]

Quote: Weird Tolkienish Figure wrote in post #68

---

Quote: musiclady wrote in post #64

---

Quote: Palinista wrote in post #44

---

The TSA was signed into law as part of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act on November 19, 2001.

I see President George W. Bush's grab for power and rush to "DO SOMETHING!" in November of 2001 in the same way that I look at President Obama's response to the Sandy Hook shooting. Never let a crisis go to waste.

I voted for George W. Bush in 2000.

I was in the hospital on election day in 2004 and unable to vote.

---

Wow.

I completely disagree with your parallel with evil, dictator-wannabe, hard-core radical, anti-gun, anti-American Obama's abuse of children to further a long term progressive anti-gun, anti-American agenda, and President Bush's team's decision to protect Americans from further terrorist attack after 9/11.

Not only not in the same ballpark.

Not in the same universe.

---

I respectfully disagree. I think they're in the exact same ballpark: trading liberty for security.

Period.

---

Quote: musiclady wrote in post #71

---

The liberty to not have your suitcase checked for bombs vs. the liberty of having your Constitutional rights denied by taking away your right to defend yourself.

Respectfully.............not in the same universe.

---

Quote: FP123 wrote in post #70

---

It is difficult to have a conversation without certain parameters being in agreement. To the best of my knowledge, the only one here that has even met GWB is TheNevadan. I don't know how in depth this one time meeting with GWB was, maybe TN can elaborate if he so wishes. Given, that, unless people are willing to speak about GWB and his policies purely in terms of what he did and said, it is pointless. No one here knows anything about what is in heart, his motivations, nor his personal beliefs -- beyond either what they have read/heard others say about him, or from their own observations of his words and deeds. If one is going to argue along the terms of him being a "good man" it will always be unproductive. I submit that no one here knows if he is a "good man," "bad man," or something in between (which I suspect is the case).

Don't we all scream in outrage when we hear 0bama say over and over: "I support the 2nd Amendment." We say, "BS, look at what he is doing, not saying." We would argue that anyone that just goes by what 0bama says, versus what he does, is a {fill-in-the-blank}. Consistency informs us that we should also apply the same standard to items like "No Child Left Behind," "Medicare Part D," and the "War on Terror." What GWB and others may have said about these things should not cloud the facts surrounding the actions. The rightness or wrongness of issues like these must be debated on principle, not which party introduced and enacted them.

In my mind any discussion of this nature should be focused on Principles and whether or not the actions supported or destroyed the Principles. If we can all agree (as Conservatives) that growing government beyond its Constitutional bounds is wrong (and even more heinous when numerous Constitutional Rights of citizens are blatantly destroyed), then we should be able to agree upon that regardless who (or what party) is doing it. The DHS, TSA, Patriot Act, etc. aren't all violating that principle because 0bama-Biden are at the helm, they were wrong and violated that Principle from the onset, when GWB-Cheney were at the helm. If we can't all be honest about that, there isn't much hope for fruitful conversation.

Numerous times on this site we see the words of our Founders posted, in this thread we've seen a couple versions of Franklin's "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." Do we believe this to be true or not? Or do we wink at it and say "well this is different, we were frightened!" This is a Principle, not a feel good idea to be discarded when convenient.

And what about Free Market Principles? Do they only apply at our convenience? Is it OK to support big government over-reach and intrusion because we "feel" that we want it, in some cases? What I am talking about here? How about the fact that "security" inherent in and surrounding a private entities service operation should be the responsibility of that private entity, not the federal government. If some airlines and airports decide that they wish to have "enhanced" security as a benefit to their customers and those customers are willing to pay for it, more power to them. If another airline decides to deploy limited security arrangements and thus charge less for their transport services, more power to them. The traveling public will decide how much they are willing to pay for enhanced security features, some will choose the full set of options, others will decide to "risk" more and pay less. Immediately someone will say "But what happens if someone blows up a plane from the low security airline?" The simple answer is that damage will occur and lives will be lost. If it keeps happening, the free market will decide that airline should no longer be in service. (As an aside, our society has warped to the point where loss of life has become something that must be avoided at all costs. That is why so much government overreach is accepted under the bogus principle of "if we can save one life, it is worth it!" Sounds familiar, I heard this earlier this week!)

Maybe we need another thread to discuss Principles without the color of particular "personalities" distorted the issues and discussions?

BTW, maybe some folks have forgotten:

Zitat

---

The next year, months before the Oklahoma City bombing took place, Biden introduced another bill called the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995. It previewed the 2001 Patriot Act by allowing secret evidence to be used in prosecutions, expanding the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and wiretap laws, creating a new federal crime of "terrorism" that could be invoked based on political beliefs, permitting the U.S. military to be used in civilian law enforcement, and allowing permanent detection of non-U.S. citizens without judicial review. The Center for National Security Studies said the bill would erode "constitutional and statutory due process protections" and would "authorize the Justice Department to pick and choose crimes to investigate and prosecute based on political beliefs and associations."

Biden himself draws parallels between his 1995 bill and its 2001 cousin. "I drafted a terrorism bill after the Oklahoma City bombing. And the bill John Ashcroft sent up was my bill," he said when the Patriot Act was being debated, according to the New Republic, which described him as "the Democratic Party's de facto spokesman on the war against terrorism."

Biden's chronology is not accurate: the bombing took place in April 1995 and his bill had been introduced in February 1995. But it's true that Biden's proposal probably helped to lay the groundwork for the Bush administration's Patriot Act.

---

[ http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10024163-38.html ]

Also:

Zitat

---

When the Patriot Act was introduced in 2001, then-Senator Joseph Biden boasted, "I drafted a terrorism bill after the Oklahoma City bombing. And the bill John Ashcroft sent up was my bill." True enough, the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995 bears strong enough similarities to the Patriot Act that we could be forgiven for thinking it was dusted off, polished and reintroduced when the moment arose. That 1995 bill was explicitly targeted at Americans in a decade full of fears about the "antigovernment movement."

---

[ http://reason.com/blog/2012/08/22/ruby-ridge-when-many-officials-realized ]

---

I met W in Austin must of been in 1995 or so. It was a Republican dinner to raise funds for some Congressman whose name I forget that strongly supported the semiconductor industry. My employer was a semiconductor equipment manufacturer. I literally drew the short straw to go. Anyway, W was there and making rounds gladhanding. He sat down at the table for a few minutes and chatted mostly with guy on my right who was a big rancehr in Texas, they talked mostly baseball.. He was affable and pleasant. Not the hestitant guy we saw on TV so much. I left thinking he was not directly like his father but a nice guy with a nice family and some ambition. BTW the guy I was most excited to meet at this thing was Charlie Wilson. He genuinely like people.