M"any have the opinon that Bush’s policies are creating more terrorists and not effectively combating them." The problem I have with this statement and the "Bush's shoot first and ask questions later policy" is that they are spins on the truth. Bush does not shoot first...he sat and looked at years of U.N. resolutions against Saddam that had all failed. He looked and saw and oil for food program that was empowering Saddam. He looked and saw that the U.N. was doing exactly what the League of Nations did...all talk and nothing to back it up. He looked and saw Saddam Hussein firing hundreds of missiles at U.S. airplanes in U.N. mandated "no fly" zones. He saw the French, German, and Russian governments making deals with the Saddam for cheap oil in exchange for ending the economic sanctions. He saw Saddam murdering a million Iraqis. He saw that Saddam had invaded his neighbors not once, but twice. He saw that the U.N. was doing the same thing as the League of Nations was doing to stop German, Italian, and Japanese invasions pre-WWII. So he got the U.N. to agree unanimously that if Saddam made one more mistake he must suffer the consequences. He did and the U.N. did nothing so Bush did.
The real issue I have is that Democratic policies during Clinton's presidency have led us to this point of Jihadist strength. The fact that they were allowed to attack the World Trade Center, the African embassies, and the Cole without any real retribution strengthened their support because they celebrated them as victories. People joined up when the Jihadists had success. The Clinton administration was weak in his response and so that emboldened the Jihadist to think they could win. Then Bush gets into office and 9/11 happens and everyone blames this president of 8 months. The problem I have is that bigbingtheory wants to blame Bush for current problems when alot of the problems come from the implementation of bigbingtheory's solutions. If Clinton HAD done the things Bush is doing now or something with a little more military oomph...like in the Balkans...Al Gore would have probably won the presidency and 9/11 might not have happened. Remember that Osama started planning 9/11 two years before it took place so he felt he needed to attack America based on U.S. policies that existed during the Clinton presidency.

me again....
So Please be openminded on both sides in your forum.
Anyway I dont know if a patriotic-nacionalist website is the right place to discuss this sensible matter as patriotisme often makes you forget or not see the possible errors of your own country.

regards

The Jihaad hate against America is real an propably the video shows a lot of truth.
Obvious that the mass of the religious extremists are people without a lot of knowledge of the around world.
But this is exactly what almost everyone I know in Europe and Southamerica thinks that a lot of americans lack: The wider view on what happens in the rest of the world (yes, there is one!) an WHY people might hate you.
Violence will produce more violence.

Regards from Europe

Battsman and LTCPMax,
thank you for your responses. Although I must say you do need a liberal point of view because each of your descriptions is inaccurate. I'll try to be brief. Battsman, 1st most of us do believe empathy is important. Sun Tzu wrote in the Art of War that you had to know your enemy. I think you confuse a desire for knowledge to better combat those would do us harm with sympathy for them. I'm no pacifist, but I do believe that violence should be the last resort. By "sob and admit it's our fault" that's another assumption. Critically analyzing past failures, that includes acknowledging them, to learn from mistakes is prudent. Don't confuse that with self loathing. I may feel ashamed at my government's actions at times but I never loathe my country. The rest of your post regarding fundamentalist views and their intolerance, I'm not sure where you came up with those conclusions. Liberal to me stands for liberty for all. That means the government need not care about my religous beliefs or sexuality. Fundamentalism exists over there in the minds of right wing conservative idealogues. It is worse there but it exists here among the same kind of people. Don't mistake the desire to give a little to avoid armed conflict with caving in to anything.
Max,
You left out Prescott grandpappy Bush who was doing business with the nazi's when we were at war with them. Ike in his farewell speech warned against and was the first to use the phrase military industrial complex. Truman called it treason and formed commissions to look into it. Recently the Republican controlled house voted against looking into Haliburton's malfeasance. Shortly after a report surfaces that our government cooked the books to cover up the vast waste of tax payer funds. I'd say it's a much bigger problem and one more difference here is back then people gave a hoot.
Re: Bush and 9/11 and Bush's watch.
When Clinton went after Bin Laden he was accused of wagging the dog. By the end of his second term he was having daily briefings regarding al Qaeda and actively spying on camps in Afghanistan. He then explained to President-select Bush that Bin Laden was public enemy #1. Bush assumed control and stopped the CIAs spying on Bin Laden. He rewarded the Taliban for stopping poppy production by giving them millions of our tax dollars. He held no meeting regarding the gathering threat he had been thoroughly warned about including by his own terrorism expert Richard Clarke. He was handed a memo that clearly outlined the desire by Bin Laden to attack us and he chose to ignore it.
While sitting in front of a group kids not acting planes were turning in the sky, Norad sat grounded, and I can only imagine that he must of had a pretty good idea at what had just happened and who was responsible. 9/11 happened on Bush's watch and he has been exploiting it for political purposes ever since. A real President would have been to turn to the children and say the President has something he needs to attend to and then attend to it. As John Kerry once said.

Dear Mr BBT:

I read the chain of comments/postings/emails...and of all your statements and spinning recollections of recent history...I would like to comment on your following statement:
"Let me remind you that 9/11 happened on Bush’s watch. The greatest attack on our soil happened while Bush sat in a classroom staring like a deer in the head lights. Do you think Reagan or Truman would have done that? Do you think maybe Eisenhower who railed against war profiteering and the military industrial complex would recognize his Republican party? No I imagine Ike would beat the tar out of Bush."

9-11 happened on BUSH's watch. Yes, correct. A plot that at current estimates took 4+ years to plan and organize was fulfilled 9 months into the term of the new President. So, I will assign, using your perspective, proportionate responsiblity of about 19% to the Bush administration for not detecting and stopping an attack on our soil, using previously unseen weapon and tactics. That leaves about 81% taht would be attributed to the previous wonderful administration.

the attack happened "while Bush sat in a classroom staring like a deer in the head lights." Funny, but that is a rather nasty and cruel interpretation of a short video clip.
Did you consider that what was whispered into his ear was "an airliner has hit the WTC, we are working to determine if it was accidental, but right now, the Secret Service says the best thing to do is stay here for several minutes while we get more information and can make some plans, Sir." I saw a President sitting, trying to to alarm a room full of children as well as an army of press reporters, until he had more facts. Of course he looked shocked, I think we all did. BUT: my preference is for a leader that sits for a moment and thinks, digests information, and then responds. You would seem to advocate that the proper action for the President would be to have dashed madly from the classroom, without detailed facts or information, serving then to look like a man that panics as soon as he gets alarming news? Yes, I think Truman, Ike, and Reagan would have done the same thing. I was a military officer for 26 yrs before retirement, and can tell you that basic a principle of Executive Crisis management training tends more towards the sit, think, gather data, and THEN react approach. But I guess you would have found fault with either response.

As far as your last comments from that section of your remarks, regarding the military industrial complex and war profiteers. Perhaps you should again read the history aroudn WW1 and WW2. The history of the Kennedy family, Carnegie, and others. There are profits that result from war economies (unfortunate, but true) and because you dont like it or dont like who the company used to employ, is meaningless. Scandals and shoody bookkeeping is not new, it happened in every war and administration. Recently, Haliburton and Bechtel are two huge companies that CAN do things on large scale, and meet the unique needs of a war that is now being fought by armies/navies without the support troops we used to have. There are no army cooks anymore, they are contractors, in part because democratic politicians kept pushing for smaller military forces. But if you want to find fault in that reality, you will, I am sure.

Great of you to think that MSUNDERSTOOD's website needed your liberal bias input... but in fact, we really don't. Actually, YOU NEED to read more and probably post less. Have a nice day.

This video captures everything that I have been discussing with family and friends for about 6 years now. Its very sad and tragic to see the level of hate that Islamist have for all non-Muslims. I am going to buy the video for certain. The video is telling the absolute truth about Jihad and the world had better wake up. Squabbling over political party is useless, doesn't matter who you are, what you are, unless you are ready to convert to Islam - because the truth is anyone who doesn't believe like they do will die. Proud to be and infidel and will die one!

I forgot to include - allow the complete destruction of Israel. It must not be allowed to exist, since it's an affront to all those who, after all, "simply disagree with us."

And be prepared to have all your Bibles and other Scriptures destroyed. And, for your sake, I hope you're not gay, since that's a capital offense (and you think the Christians are bad just because they won't recognize homosexual marriage, just wait for the radical Islamic Sharia laws).

Finally, our women need to stop offending these people - stop showing your ankles and wrists, much less your cleavage and your faces. And we need to remove your right to vote, sorry, since it offends those who are simply "disagreeing with us." In fact, one of the horrible things they hate about the West (and we simply must understand their anger) is that we allow women so many rights, including appearing in public and not having daily beatings from their husbands.

And "honor" killings will have to be allowed, of course.

Yep, I think I now know the liberal plan. Basically, acquiesce and realize our "opposition" is right and we're wrong.

I understand the liberal view. First, understand the anger of those who hate us. Second, sob and admit that it's all our fault. In fact, all the evil in the world is the fault of the Judeo-Christian West (never mind the nagging facts). Third, give them land. And more land. And yet more land. And money. And weapons. And then more land.

Eventually, when they have a world-wide Caliphate, they just might quit killing those of us still alive, and instead just look down on us in disdain as subclasses.

Of course, I'll be considered an elitist bigot for saying such, but I have missionary friends in Indonesia, and others now in the Congo (after they spent a great deal of time in Morocco). I'll take their experiences over the comfy couch opinions of American liberals any day.

And to be fair, I want to post BBT's email response for assuming I blocked him.

"Thank you for the info and accept my apologies for assuming the worst.

Bing,"

No problem, Bing... it happens.

And my response to him in email:

"I never blocked your access. My Spam Karma caught all of your posts for two reasons: Multiple comments, back to back, with no pingable URL, and Google gave you a comment "Blacklist" rating. But I went into my SK controls and released your comments. They are all now where you wanted them to be on the posts.

Keep this in mind in the future... if I can't monitor my Spam Karma every 10 minutes, and you post something, it's going to catch it because of the above reasons."

Bigbingtheory's next email to me:

"One more thing, regarding your blog,
Nice, you block my access then criticize me for not responding.

We is those who criticize the President, that's liberals, moderates, Democrats and even some ture conservatives and republicans. We in this case, is everyone you don't want to hear from.
Whose conclusion you ask? The world. Everyone. Yes you're correct there are people out there bent ondestroting us and Bush's policies of bomb first and ask questions later has created more jihadis.

A better way to deal with this would be to use real diplomacy. Talking and considering other's views instead of acting like bullies. It is a fact that we are not as popular as we once were in the world. Despite what some might think we do need other countries help and cooperation at times and it is easier to get if we have good diplomatic relations. Diplomacy does matter.

What needs to be done? *sigh*

fix this mess we're in. Mend our relationships with our allies through diplomacy as I mentioned above. Use our military in a prudent manner through redployment. There is no doubt that terrorist organizations and hard liners have risen up against us due to our botching of the occupation. Asking the world's nations to truly help rebuild Iraq and Lebenaon.

Furthermore, you will not defeat terrorism with bombs. You have to win over the hearts and minds of those who don't yet hate us. Massive world humanitarian aid efforts in war torn areas of the world backed with our military might will make it harder to convince kids to strap bombs on themselves.

Bing"

Since BBT sent back-to-back comments, and he had not pingable URL, my WP Spam Karma trapped all 7 of his last responses. I finally freed them, and they should appear shortly.

Meanwhile, this is the first of his replies to me again in my private email:

Bigbingtheory: "Ms. U.

I'm on the side of the Constitution, that is why I am a liberal. You don't seem to want to know what the left is about or any Democratic plans for that matter because you choose not to do the research. Yes, changing course is a great place to start. Many have the opinon that Bush's policies are creating more terrorists and not effectively combating them. I'd love to tell you why that is if you'd care to know. The left has no cogent arguments? To what? Please ask me a question and I'll be glad to answer you. I'm not sure what questions you are refering to that I didn't on your blog. I made it clear I was liberal. And no, I don't think you have an understanding of our history because if you did you certainly would not have the blinders on for Bush. Contrary to your assertions, people think he's the worst president since Hoover based on his handling of his job. Not his sex life but how he has executed the oath he took to uphold and protect the constitution. If you were a realist you'd know he has violated that oath. You're not a realist because you choose to ignore information you don't like instead of digesting it. I gather you'd prefer to cling to the idea that anything bad is Clinton and the liberals fault. It doesn't matter what plan the Democrats have or don't have as your mind is made up. You've relied on some bad sources of information. Let me remind you that 9/11 happened on Bush's watch. The greatest attack on our soil happened while Bush sat in a classroom staring like a deer in the head lights. Do you think Reagan or Truman would have done that? Do you think maybe Eisenhower who railed against war profiteering and the military industrial complex would recognize his Republican party? No I imagine Ike would beat the tar out of Bush. For Pete's sake why are you so loyal to someone who has failed on every front? Our military is overstretched, our borders porous, our debt is owned by foreign governments the likes of China and we have 5 million more people who live below the poverty level. Tell me what has Bush done right? You call Clinton an embarassment? Bush has sullied our reputation and instead of a beacon of hope in the world we have become feared and loathed. That's a reality and this proud American will criticize the President who has made our great nation a laughing stock. So what is Bush's plan? Permenant occupation of Iraq? The rapture? What exactly? And just to make sure that I answer all your questions yes Howard Dean's comments can be divisive and I'd prefer that wasn't the case. Big whoop, he calls Katherine Harris Stalin and Maliki an anti-semite, he's guilty of gross pandering. Gasp! And here is something to chew on, the United States Constitution is a liberal document. Liberal stands for liberty for all as I define it. Liberals are not what you make them out to be."

I think I understand what the Democrats' plan for fighting terrorism is. Even though I don't entirely agree with it.

First of all, I have reluctantly concluded that the liberals are right when they say that Bush's objective in Iraq--to create a stable democracy there--is unattainable. Because it's ill-defined and depends on such subjective criteria as "hearts and minds" of the Iraqi people. Also because "Iraq" is an artificial colonialist concoction of Kurds, Shi'a and Sunni who would probably be happier and more peaceful if they lived in separate nations. Keeping Iraq together is like sending a NATO expeditionary force into the Balkans to put Yugoslavia back together.

From what mainstream Democrats have said, I gather their approach to fighting terrorism would be: First, redouble our efforts to put al-Qaeda and related terrorist networks out of business. The Special Forces would be doubled. Second, withdraw from Iraq forthwith. If Iraq slides into civil war, that's not necessarily a bad thing. The more that the Shi'a and Sunni slaughter each other, the less time they will have to plot against the West. Senator Biden has suggested that Iraq ought to be broken up (which is true), meaning that he might also support some kind of Kurdish homeland too. The Kurds are the most pro-Western of all Iraqis, and having even a rump independent Kurdish state would be to our advantage.

So far, I could live with all that. The place where I sharply deviate from Democrat plans is the heavy emphasis they put on "engagement" with Iran and Syria. They remain proud of Warren Christopher's numerous trips to Syria, hat in hand, begging for favors, which accomplished nothing in the long run. And they're still proud of the "grand bargain" they made with North Korea (even though it fell flat), and appear to want to make a similar "grand bargain" with Iran (which I believe will fall flat too).

So when are y'all enlisting? If you think Bush is doing it so right and you love your country so much why have you not gone off to war? Don't join the National Guard if you want to get out of active duty. It's not like the good 'ol days when Bush could sit out Vietnam. They actually use our Naitional Guard to guard another nation.

Nice, you block my access then criticize me for not responding.
We is those who criticize the President, that's liberals, moderates, Democrats and even some ture conservatives and republicans. We in this case, is everyone you don't want to hear from.
Whose conclusion you ask? The world. Everyone. Yes you're correct there are people out there bent ondestroting us and Bush's policies of bomb first and ask questions later has created more jihadis.
A better way to deal with this would be to use real diplomacy. Talking and considering other's views instead of acting like bullies. It is a fact that we are not as popular as we once were in the world. Despite what some might think we do need other countries help and cooperation at times and it is easier to get if we have good diplomatic relations. Diplomacy does matter.
What needs to be done? *sigh*
fix this mess we're in. Mend our relationships with our allies through diplomacy as I mentioned above. Use our military in a prudent manner through redployment. There is no doubt that terrorist organizations and hard liners have risen up against us due to our botching of the occupation. Asking the world's nations to truly help rebuild Iraq and Lebenaon and Israel. What else would you like to know?

Well, since Bigbingtheory wouldn't answer me here, and sent me a private email instead, I'm going to post his oh-so-thoughtful response here (since this is where I asked for it).

Bigbingtheory: "Well it seems I did misunderestimate you. I thought maybe your blog might enjoy an actual liberals perspective vs. the perception you may have already. Because from what I've you don't know liberals or what the Democrats stand for.

In stead of trying to work out differences and iron out misunderstandings you'd rather remain divisive. So who's the elitist? Despite what you might think we both want the same things. we just disagree on how to get those things accomplished. Oh well.

It takes more than a flag graphic and eagles that would be extinct right now hadn't it been for some sniveling whining liberal, to be an American or patriotic. Based on some of your comments I'd guess you don't really have an understanding of this great countries history at all.

Peace
Bing"

Ms. U: "Bing:

I don't know what "side" you're on, because you didn't answer any of my questions on my blog. Divisive? Check out Dean's latest comments for an example.

And I beg your pardon, but I DO have a great understanding of what this phenomal country's history is. I'm not an elitist; I'm a realist. The left has no cogent arguments, and for the life of me, I cannot figure out why STILL nobody will TELL US WHAT THEIR PLAN IS! All they can do is say it's "better." Well what in God's name does that mean? All the left does is bash Bush, and it seems that most of the politicians and pundits on the left have made a career out of it. They'd better not bet the farm on being able to retire from that career, though.

When everything is said and done, the history books will look at George W. Bush as one of the greatest Presidents of our time. He will be up there with Reagan, Truman, and the rest. The left's poster boy, Clinton, will be a scab on the history of this country, embarassing us in the front of the world for doing something in the Oval Office that would make Ronald Reagan spin in his grave. Reagan wouldn't even ENTER the Oval Office without a suit jacket, much less be "served" under the desk by some loser intern.

Get a collective clue, or you'll never understand why the left has been losing elections since 1994.

Ms. U"

Bigbingtheory says: "we don’t agree with how this fight is being fought."

I ask: "Who is 'we'?"

BBT says: "this war against jihadists is becoming more dangerous and further from a conclusion."

I ask: "Further from a conclusion on whose side? The only conclusion on the Jihadi's side is the death of all non-Muslims."

BBT says: "there has to be better ways to defeat our enemies."

I ask: "Then what is that better way? If there 'has' to be a better way, why hasn't someone come up with it yet?"

BBT says: "Just disagree strongly on what needs to be done."

I ask (again): "...*sigh*... okay, so you disagree about what needs to be done. What, pray tell, does need to be done in your mind?"

I'm looking forward to your responses.

Ms. U

It's not blindness Joyce. I understand your frustration but honestly we don't agree with how this fight is being fought. It's not out of compacency, it's out of a fear this war against jihadists is becoming more dangerous and further from a conclusion. Those who oppose how the Bush administration is handling terrorism believe there has to be better ways to defeat our enemies. We want the same things as you do, love our country just as much. Just disagree strongly on what needs to be done.

What's it going to take for most Americans to understand that there is a World War being waged against the West by the jihadists? Do they have to have their own heads sawed off first? Have they forgotten 9/11, do they not watch the news or read? People here are so superficial, spoiled and oblivious, they are too busy going to baseball games and getting their nails done to understand the world around them. I am more frightened by these obtuse & blind Americans (mostly on the Left) than I am by the terrorists. Because blind people can't defend themselves.