10 years of diplomacy is enough. I'm tired of people who think EVERYTHING in the world can be solved with diplomacy. In a civilized environment, these people would be spot on. However, the enemy we're dealing with is a fundamentalist religious group with whom diplomacy doesn't work. A french journalist was taken hostage because France passed a law banning religious symbols (including parts of the attire muslim women are required to wear). People like that can't be dealt with through simple diplomacy. How did the Russian hostage situation end? Diplomacy? Dont think so. If the Russians had gone that course, how many hostages would have died while they waited for their government to negotiate with the thugs? If anyone still isnt sure, maybe this will show you how ready and willing the enemy is to "negotiate" with those that don't share their opinion.
I think you are pissed that he's getting to go to sleep. Your kid must be keeping you up at night. You have been awfully strident and condemning as of late. Why don't you go join Kerry's secret troops who are going to ferret out all of the terrorists around the world and get some kills under your belt. Maybe you'll feel better. Drug laws will be reformed by the time you get back and you can openly get high in the park nearest you.
Not pissed about him sleeping at all. Actually, my son has been sleeping through the night without even a single bottle for the past week. The only things I condemn are intolerance, lying, and distortions. If he could make it through even a single thread without any of those, I would be fine, but that doesn't seem to happen. Too old, they would never take me. And neither of these men has the balls to reform the drug laws.
If we had continued attacking AQ, your analysis would be correct, but we have moved on to Iraq, where fundamentalist Islamic militants were persecuted by Saddam because he knew they were a threat to his power. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 or AQ, was completely contained, and could have been taken out if diplomacy had failed. Bush didn't even TRY diplomacy, he warned Iraq to disarm and then ignored Saddam's offer to allow CIA and FBI agents to scour the country. 10 years of diplomacy is NOT enough when there is more on the table, as there was before the Iraq war. Taken hostage by AQ or some equivalent, right? We aren't fighting them anymore, we left Afghanistan to the warlords. People like those can't be, but Saddam was NOT one of those. Saddam had a HUGE motivation to stay in power and would have done anything to accomplish that, but Bush ignored the diplomatic solutions and went straight to the military ones. Again, when you are talking about TERRORISTS, you are right, but Saddam had NOTHING to do with AQ or 9/11.
Sept. 11 didn't cause the economic downshift -- Bush did. The attacks made it worse, that's for sure, but it was *not* the cause.
Btw, there is great govt data, available in chart form at: http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?ln I came across it trying to figure out how much one should handicap the jobs loss data b/c of 9/11. As with most data, its conclusive as while that sept saw a huge jump in jobs (not sure if data is as of 1st or last of that month) the previous months were not strong. Obiously, the last qtr of the year saw continuing job losses followed by job creation by 2002.
GreenVegan -- Please elaborate on how Bush's policies created the downturn in late 2000 and early 2001. I'd like to remind you that the stock market began declining in March of 2000. What that means is that investors, economists, and investment managers all believed that we were in for troubled times. They made this conclusion in March of 2000. Are you here to say that they predicted a Bush victory at that point in time, and that they also predicted Bush's policy moves? That is nothing short of lunacy. I eagerly await your explanation, GreenVegan. The fact of the matter is that Bush's fiscal and monetary policies have all been pro-growth and seen as economic stimulus by the market. Bush inherited a faltering economy and did his best to stem the tide. Growth over the past few quarters has been the best in 20 years. If you don't think the economy will falter after being attacked by terrorists or having the tech boom come to and end, then you need to sit in on Economics 101. Do you have evidence to back up your wild claim, or are you simply spouting the lines you memorized after listening to Stuart Smalley again?
If you don't think the economy will falter after being attacked by terrorists or having the tech boom come to and end, then you need to sit in on Economics 101. When did that recovery start after the March 2001 recession (you know the one that started two months AFTER Bush took office)?
1. The recession technically started in the first quarter of 2001. Clinton was the president at the beginning of that quarter, and his policies were most certainly being followed then. To claim to have it pinpointed further than that is simply silliness. Maybe you could tell me the exact minute and second it started, No Worries. 2. Economies do not turn on a dime. This move started in March of 2000, as I stated previously. That's when the investing communities saw the writing on the wall. 3. Policy moves take time to ripple through the economy. To think that Bush's moves in the first two months caused the Q1 2001 recession is absurd. It is furthered rendered ridiculous by the fact that evey single one of Bush's uses of economic policy moves has been perceived as helping the economy. GreenVegan, I'm still waiting for your response. Prove to us your economic wizardry.
We keep having this same discussion. You say W inherited the recession that began after he took office. Using the word "inherit" is disingenuous, but that seems to never stop you. National Bureau of Economic Research make the recession and recovery call. The last recession started in March 2001 and its associated recovery started in November 2001. Now how months after September 11th 2001 is November 2001? I will not be surprised if you and your Econ 101 education try and dispute the NBER findings.
So you want to take the third quater 2001 off the table too? GWB would then get credit for neither the recession nor the recovery. Of course, the jobless recovery of 2002 and 2003 would then go to his "credit".
