Bush Kept Us Safe! McCain Will Keep Us Safe!

[Greenday]

A friend of mine, who is hardcore Republican, posted a note on facebook about why Obama isn't a valid candidate for president. One of her reasons was the Obama will not keep us safe and McCain will, like Bush has. I have heard this crap so many times. "Bush kept us safe." "McCain will keep us safe." "Obama will not be able to keep us safe."

Where the hell do people come up with this? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the military keeping us safe? Isn't it the various government agencies (FBI, NSA, etc.) keeping us safe? Some racist twit (called me a "nigger" because I only listen to the liberal media) responded to me saying that since Bush is the Commander in Chief of the military, that means he's the one keeping us safe. My response to that is Bush is not making the majority of the decisions. When we plan an attack on a terrorist outpost or some such thing, the military doesn't look to Bush for input. The military plans it out on their own.

So, opinions on whether or not it's Bush keeping us safe or not? McCain will keep us safe but not Obama?

[AFPheonix]

I think a pertinent question paired with yours is what do they keep us safe from?

Clearly with bad foreign policy decisions this administration have not only failed to ensure the safety of citizens in countries we have invaded such as Iraq and Afghanistan, they have increased recruitment amongst fringe groups to mobilize against targets in our countries and many others, such as European countries and Pakistan.

They have allowed health care costs to rocket out of control while the economic slowdown and crash has pushed more people into having to seek public aid, putting more of us in danger health wise.

By undercutting environmental protection, they have endangered our health in a different, insidious way.

By continuing to ignore the continuing degradation of our infrastructure, they have put us at risk of failing bridges and increased traffic accidents on poorly maintained and designed roads. Power outages and increased power costs create risk for elderly people who need air conditioning in the summer and for those who are on life-saving machines.

They have not reviewed and corrected flawed nutritional information spread by the government, they did not overhaul the farm bill, both of which contribute to obesity rates in our population, creating health risks through diabetes and heart disease.

I'm sure I could come up with more if I wanted....

[IDrinkaRum]

There is also the "Domestic Terrorist" William Ayers & his wife that have been brought up a lot lately.

Mr. Ayers and his followers would spit on Service Men/Women who were in Viet Nam and were coming back permanently to the U.S. after the war, or after their tours were over.

Mr. Ayers and his followers have bombed the Pentagon. And they aren't even sorry about it. Mr. Ayers has said (supposedly) that he wished it was bigger so it could do more damage.

How can Barack Obama keep us safe from outside terrorists if he won't keep us safe from inside terrorists and insists on being friends with him?

(Note: I'm posing these questions to add to the discussion, not that I do or do not believe in what is being said about Mr. Ayers).

[AdminAssistant]

... they did not overhaul the farm bill, both of which contribute to obesity rates in our population, creating health risks through diabetes and heart disease.

How does the farm bill contribute to obesity? What it DOES do is keep the cost of production down for farms, therefore regulating the price of American grain, cotton, etc.

The Ayers thing..meh. A desperate attack by a losing campaign. I mean, I'm sure we could go through McCain's past relationships and find some less than favorable people. And, don't forget, Sarah Palin's foreign policy 'coach' is none other than Henry Kissinger - one of the most dangerous and manipulative bastards in American history. (If you don't know, Kissinger was the brains behind the Nixon Administration, first as National Security Advisor, then Secretary of State).

[anriana]

To continue the modern terrorist angle, McCain didn't vote against domestic terrorists who attacked/bombed/attempted to murder people in legal clinics performing operations he didn't like. Who's to say he won't allow domestic terrorists to neutralize Roe v. Wade if he can't get it overturned?

[Amethyst Hunter]

It's fear. Plain simple good 'ol-fashioned fearmongering.

Frankly, I wouldn't trust Bush with a wet paper bag, much less the kind of crap he's got his mitts on now. The credit for "keeping us safe" belongs solely to the countless men and women who are busting their asses out there every single damn day, not some spoiled brat punk who struts around in a uniform (which he went AWOL in) for show boasting "Mission Accomplished!" when it very clearly *hasn't*.

Ditto McCain, although for different reasons. McCain lets his temper and his biases get the better of him, and I firmly believe he'd carpet-bomb every "brown person" country on the planet if he thought he could get away with it. He's not a maverick, he's a threat to national security in his own right. (Ditto that foul VP pick of his, who bragged about starting shit with *Russia*, of all places, and who has ties to wingnuts so hardcore right they make Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson look downright hippie-liberal, what with all their crowing about bringing on an apocalypse!)

People mistake Obama's talk about diplomatic dialogue for "roll over and play dead". Wrong. Talking doesn't mean conceding. It means working with those who are willing to speak before shooting, so to speak, to find a common ground from which a base for peaceful solutions can be built. Very few countries are willing to risk an all-out war that would likely result in their destruction, despite some of the inflammatory saber-rattling that sometimes goes on. That's why Saddam, when he was still around, never tried much of anything after Gulf War I - he knew we'd turn Iraq into a parking lot if he pissed us off enough. That's why Iran, for all of Ahmadinejad's bullshitting, won't risk poking the Israel hornet's nest with its stick. They have too much to lose.

I'd much rather have a commander-in-chief who surrounds himself with capable, knowledgable people who are calm and sensible, and who in turn behaves as such, instead of an arrogant cowboy type who thinks that browbeating everybody into submission is the only way of solving things. War should always, ALWAYS be the very last resort.

As for Ayers, it's a pathetic attempt to try and smear Obama when it's clear that more and more, people aren't buying the Republican bullshit. Ayers hasn't done anything violent since those days and while he may well still be a nutter, there's nothing to indicate that he's gone back to those methods or that he sponsors people who do. The extent of his connection with Obama is tenuous at best: they live in the same city, they once served on the same charity board, and Ayers once threw a fundraiser for Obama way back in the early 90s. Obama himself is on record as condemning Ayers's past several times, and there's nothing to prove that he has any closer of a relationship than the abovementioned bits.

[AdminAssistant]

Ditto that foul VP pick of his, who bragged about starting shit with *Russia*, of all places,

"But didn't ya know? The Cold War was sooo awesome."

[/Fargo accent]

[Rapscallion]

I read the first few posts and wondered to myself if the candidates were able to keep others safe from the US.

As to the diplomacy vs threats thing, look at what happened with the IRA. Unless you actually talk to the people who are doing the bombing etc, then you're not going to get anywhere.

Rapscallion

[Boozy]

I don't understand the premise. "Bush kept us safe." From what? Nuclear holocaust? 9/11 happened on his watch.

Worse case scenario, his administration's incompetence left the door open for the worst terrorist attack on US soil in history. At best, al Qaeda was so determined and organized that no administration could have stopped them. We may never know. But either way, is it not ludicrous to claim that Bush kept America safe?

[Slytovhand]

Worse case scenario, his administration's incompetence left the door open for the worst terrorist attack on US soil in history. At best, al Qaeda was so determined and organized that no administration could have stopped them. We may never know. But either way, is it not ludicrous to claim that Bush kept America safe?

Ummm - wouldn't that be 'best case scenario??? Worst case is that he planned and plotted it, and even paid for them to do it...???

[daleduke17]

I don't understand the premise. "Bush kept us safe." From what? Nuclear holocaust? 9/11 happened on his watch.

But remember, Bush was only in office a few months and it was Clinton's inaction that really caused 9/11.

/Fox News

[AFPheonix]

How does the farm bill contribute to obesity? What it DOES do is keep the cost of production down for farms, therefore regulating the price of American grain, cotton, etc.

The Ayers thing..meh. A desperate attack by a losing campaign. I mean, I'm sure we could go through McCain's past relationships and find some less than favorable people. And, don't forget, Sarah Palin's foreign policy 'coach' is none other than Henry Kissinger - one of the most dangerous and manipulative bastards in American history. (If you don't know, Kissinger was the brains behind the Nixon Administration, first as National Security Advisor, then Secretary of State).

It keeps costs down for large production farmers of very few cash crops. It wasn't until this last iteration that it finally started paying out to large vegetable farmers. It does nothing for the small farmers who are inevitably used to justify this monstrosity of a bill in the first place.
It contributes to the excessive use of HFCS due to corn being so cheap (that and costly sugar tariffs that protect the small sugar segment in this country, to the detriment of consumers) that is found in just about every product, which I think has contributed to the obesity issue.

[crazylegs]

It will not be the FBI who has the first contact with an extremist, nor will it be the CIA, NSA, GCHQ, Special Branch or any other snappily named organisation.

It will be the beat officer, the neighbourhood cop who patrols daily, the officer who knows who is in their area, who spots the purchases of hexamine tablets or of nail polish remover. These people, who input intelligence daily, are the people who keep you safe, it these people who contribute to the bigger picture with small snippets of information.

Using intelligence to beat these people (which is how it's done) is like completing a 10000 piece puzzle without the edges or the corners. However at some point you get a tiny piece of intel that will make it all slot together and everything falls into place nicely.

It is not the top politicians who keep you safe, they just ask those who do to do so.

[AdminAssistant]

It keeps costs down for large production farmers of very few cash crops. It wasn't until this last iteration that it finally started paying out to large vegetable farmers. It does nothing for the small farmers who are inevitably used to justify this monstrosity of a bill in the first place.
It contributes to the excessive use of HFCS due to corn being so cheap (that and costly sugar tariffs that protect the small sugar segment in this country, to the detriment of consumers) that is found in just about every product, which I think has contributed to the obesity issue.

So, you wish for the farm bill to be expanded not eliminated. Gotcha. Which is fine, small farmers do need all the help they can get. But if not for the Farm Bill, the price of food produced in America would skyrocket to unbelievable heights. Because every time the EPA decided an insecticide or fertilizer was hazardous or when the government mandated boll weevil erradication (grrrr) or a new piece of equipment was needed or there was a drought or flood or...(you get the idea), then the farmer would have to eat those costs and would pass that cost all the way down to the consumer.

[AFPheonix]

So, you wish for the farm bill to be expanded not eliminated. Gotcha. Which is fine, small farmers do need all the help they can get. But if not for the Farm Bill, the price of food produced in America would skyrocket to unbelievable heights. Because every time the EPA decided an insecticide or fertilizer was hazardous or when the government mandated boll weevil erradication (grrrr) or a new piece of equipment was needed or there was a drought or flood or...(you get the idea), then the farmer would have to eat those costs and would pass that cost all the way down to the consumer.

I don't wish for it to be expanded necessarily, I wish for it to be altered so that large corporations aren't being funded by my money when the whole point of the bill in the first place was to help the little guy. It's a bill with a lot of unintended effects including pricing out the little guys in countries south of us and I think it has led in part to the exodus of people out of small towns in the cornbelt as farmers have to work larger and larger plots to survive.