You’re right, MisterE; Al-Qaeda absolutely loved us prior to Bush. In fact we were bedfellows – so much so that they took the time and effort to plan an elaborate attack, driving enormous passenger jets straight into the World Trade Center (Towers I and II, if you remember correctly) and the Pentagon. We were the best of friends. Too bad Bush ruined it all! Those damn conservatives! Meanwhile — in reality, we were already considered the “assholes,” as you suggest, considering that 9/11 was planned mostly during Clinton’s presidency (again, before Bush). Oh, and if you actually consider the ignored terrorist attacks that took place from 1993 straight through 2000, then your contentions are extremely off base. America has been hated for quite some time. Clearly, they took issue with us well before Bush II took power.
What I will say is this: There are policies embraced by the current administration that have had some negative and unfortunate consequences. With this said, these were not intentional (which does not by any means excuse them) and have often come as the result of world events that are out of U.S. control. Mistakes have been made, indeed, but the issues are much more complicated then you’re making them.
If you pick up a Bible (which I know you have adamantly criticized me for believing in prior to this debate) or a history book, you’ll see that the Middle East has never been a picture of peace or prosperity. Bush didn’t create all of the world’s turmoil and acting as though the Democrats can simply solve it is improper – and incorrect.
The nation is deeply divided. I’m not so sure I’d be totally surprised if another conservative (or Republican) won for that matter. Fishy? I think not. You’re a New Yorker; if you cross the border, I’m sure you’ll find conservatives. In fact, they’re all over the nation, so it wouldn’t be a surprise for them to, well — vote Republican.
"We should be so lucky to have a repeat of the glorious Clinton administration where the biggest problem we had was a pimp for a president." - MisterE
Right, so what you’re saying is that we should be glad to have had a man who was more distracted by his personal life than he was by the possible demise of his own nation prior to 9/11? Oh wait, I forgot. Clinton did attempt to fight terrorism. He ordered an attack on an alleged arms plant in Sudan (which was actually one of his only attempts to "fight" terrorism) on the night in which Monica Lewinsky appeared before Ken Starr’s grand jury. Intriguing and coincidental — I’m sure. But…but…it turned out that the plant was actually making Aspirin! How patriotic. Apparently this is excusable and consistently ignored. Or, read the Salon story for full details (as I know how partisan Michael Moore can be).
Bottom line: Clinton and Bush have both killed innocence and have both made mistakes. The difference? The issues ignored during the Clinton era have infiltrated the Bush regime, dictating foreign policy and setting the stage for uncontrollable global atrocities. Still, this ignorance on Clinton’s part was not intentional; no one has full access to a crystal ball. Neither leader can be fully blamed for what’s occurred. Partial blame I’ll give you, but don’t give it to Bush without distributing a small portion (at least) to Clinton.
The world, in fact, was a better place in the 1990’s because radical Islamo-fascism hadn’t yet taken full form. I would never credit or blame a president for setting an overall global tone; they do, however, contribute to such a tone.
I couldn’t disagree more with you, Mister E. Yes, Bush has made mistakes, but pledging allegiance to Bill Clinton is about as sensible as using the Oval Office to meet your own personal needs, whilst ignoring the needs of an entire nation.
Read "We should be so lucky" and maybe you’ll see why I oppose it so.