Every new President is tested early in his term. Whether a real or a manufactured crisis.
Every President, representing as he does every American, not just his base, has to make decisions unpopular with that base. That's why there is an executive branch. A President who never pisses off his base is a bad President.
This is not a gaffe. This is not making preemptive excuses. This is reality.
FearTheReaper said:
Both Clinton and Bush were 'tested' early in the presidencies. Both times, the WTC was bombed. So, it's not much of a conspiracy as it is history.
Oh good now that their is no WTC, you can breathe a sigh of releif- though it is also worth mentioning that their hasnt been an "alqaeda" attack in the U.S since 9/11 , even though they were the organisation that was bombing in both instances you refered to- the bush administration has never shyed away from giving alqaeda another reason to attack the united states again, yet it hasnt? Please tell me why the bush administration has been so effective in dealing with terrorism, but once Obama takes the white house; Alqaeda will return with such vigor and effectiveness?
So effective?
We're throwing 10 million dollars a month at a nation where the inhabitants basically don't want us there, a good portion of our population doesn't want our military there and there have been a multitude of terrorist attacks in that country.
The only thing he effectively did was give Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations a target that isn't on U.S. soil. It just requires a payment of 10 million dollars a month to keep it that way. That is not efficient by any means, and he has done nothing to eliminate the problem of terrorism.
He hasn't actually gone after Al Qaeda, the current administration has made the point that there was Al Qaeda in Iraq to further the spending on the war, while we keep minimal soldiers in Afghanistan, where it seems there is more terrorist activity and training than in Iraq.
You do realise I was questioning the effectiveness of the "War on Terror" right?
The question still stands where will this magical resurgence in terrorism within the U.S to test Obama come from?
If you want to concentrate on Iraq, Afganistan- thats all well in good, the problem is that these nations cells practices and activities are limited to those regions and targeting the forces or populace in the area, in other words the "terrorist" activitiy in these countries have more in common with guerilla war fare.
Aside from Bin Laden's dumb luck, the history of terrorism practiced by cells far from their general base of support dont have a hell of alot of effectiveness aside from sometimes blowing up an occaisional plane, but most of the time merely hijacking it and taking hostages.
In fact the times when terrorist organisation have been the most effective as a "destructive force" has been when it was supplied, trained by actual government agencies, like the U.S's CIA did for Alqaeda to help them fight the soviets.
You want to concentrate on Afghanistan, thats great considering British generals are already conceding that Afghanistan is a lost cause and are suggesting negotiating with the taliban, I am sure your nation would do much better then the soviet union, fuck they shared a common border with Afghanistan, you will have to lean on nations who all have populaces with close ties with the Afghanis populace and thus a large section of sympathisers to anti american/NATO forces as well.
In the last 8 years the average american has been at a bigger risk of getting shot at by college students going nuts then being exposed to a bomb planted by a terorist.
I suggest putting some of that 10 (b)illion dollars a month towards some more accessible psyciatric care and consulting then shifting it to central asia.....
Varuka_Salt
I'm lost
October 2006
OCT 23, 2008 05:01 PM