'Marking his fifth Veterans Day since the invasion of Iraq, President Bush honored U.S. troops past and present at a tearful ceremony for four Texans who died there.

The White House had said Bush was going to also use his Veterans Day speech to scold Congress for not sending him a veterans spending bill. But the president finished without any reference to the bill or Congress... Bush Marks Veterans Day in Texas

'North Korea has probably met the legal criteria to be removed from the terrorism list, the State Department's special ambassador for counterterrorism said Jan. 22.

``They have moved along in their denuclearization. We've moved along looking at delisting them,'' Dell Dailey said. ``It appears that North Korea has complied with those criteria.''' North Korea Terrorism Tag Stays During Nuclear Talks, U.S. Says

If North Korea is taken off the list, that'd be quite an achievement, wouldn't it? (And done so cheaply, in terms of money, lives and so on, too.)

On the other hand, Bush's Middle East tour seems to have come to nothing - did it ever look like it was going to achieve anything? Pressure on Gaza's border mounts

One of the things that can still be pointed to as an achievement of Bush's is that no terrorism has taken place actually in the US since 9/11. The idea that this is because all the terrorists have rushed to Iraq is, of course, facile. But how much credit can Bush actually take? How good is the increased 'homeland security'?

Domestic spying far outpaces terrorism prosecutions

Is there any way of knowing just how dangerous or powerful al Qaeda actually is?

'News media cited official Afghani reports attributing the recent assassination attempt on US-ally Afghani President Hamid Karzai to Al-Qaeda. In other reports, the US rationalised its own assassination of a leading Somali militia leader Aden Hashi Eyrow on 1 May as targeting a key Al-Qaeda member. It's not the logic of the assassination that is key here, but rather the fact that while Al- Qaeda has reached a position of strength that can penetrate several layers of defences in Afghanistan, the US is getting itself involved in a regional feud in Somalia. Why would the Bush administration be chasing Al-Qaeda in Somalia, as in Iraq, if the group is reportedly in the most powerful position in Afghanistan?

Moreover, if Al-Qaeda indeed exists on such a large and influential scale in so many countries, isn't it time to question the logic used by the Bush administration's "war on terror" that was meant to weaken and destroy Al- Qaeda in the first place?

It may be, of course, that Al-Qaeda's power and outreach is inflated for political reasons, where every conflict the US is involved in becomes immediately reduced to those who support, shield or host Al-Qaeda or Al- Qaeda inspired groups, thus justifying US military intervention anywhere.'
www.zmag.org

quote:

One of the things that can still be pointed to as an achievement of Bush's is that no terrorism has taken place actually in the US since 9/11.

Probably because the US has strengthened security on the Canadian border.

Yes, now when we want to go see Ichiro we have to show our Safeway Club card and promise not to blow anything up.

Meanwhile - this is maybe, kind of, half good: US lists polar bear as threatened

He has given us the largest, most powerful, most competitive and most versitile economy the world has ever known.

We have (possibly) the lowest unemployment in our nation's history.

Bush was the only president to take the fight to the terrorists after about 30 years of running and allowing terrorists to develop global operational vision.

Bush has freed tens of millions of people from some of the worst tyrranies of the last 20 years.

Bush proved once again that cutting taxes dramatically increases federal revenues as well as jump starts our economy.

Bush has not once been involved in a single scandal of either personal behavior or professional conduct. This makes him almost unique in American politics and a superb example of public service.

quote:

Bush was the only president to take the fight to the terrorists...

He took the fight to the terrorists? True, there has been an invasion of Afghanistan, but it's been somewhat overshadowed by the invasion of Iraq - where 'the' terrorists weren't.

quote:

He has given us the largest, most powerful, most competitive and most versitile economy the world has ever known.

Bush did that? It would be quite an achievement, but I think the US economy was already pretty large when he took office.

quote:

Bush proved once again that cutting taxes dramatically increases federal revenues..

That's debatable. There are so many variables in the generation of revenue. I don't think we can say Bush has 'proved' it.

'...The impact of the tax cuts on economic growth is a matter of debate among economists. We're not voicing a view on whether the tax cuts should have been enacted; that, too, is a separate discussion. But it is clear they did not "increase revenues."' factcheck.org

quote:

We have (possibly) the lowest unemployment in our nation's history.

'US employers added only 18,000 jobs in December and the national unemployment rate rose to 5 per cent, its highest in more than two years, according to a government report today.' www.ireland.com

Is 5% (and rising?) the lowest rate in US history?

Your responses are typical of liberals. Whenever evidence disputes your worldview, you deny the evidence.

(Accepting evidence as it is is a test of maturity and sanity.)

In the 1990's, al Qaida was operational in more than two dozen countries. We've taken the fight to Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Ethiopia, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. We've also conducted a concerted global war against them in the financial markets by cutting off and seizing their funds. In case you didn't notice, they're having a little trouble lately. (Please name any other leader anywhere in the world who has come anywhere close to fighting global terrorism the way Bush has.)

As for the tax cuts, there is nothing debatable about it; you only need to know how to do math. In 2000, federal revenues were about $2 trillion. In 2006, federal revenues were $2.6 trillion. Now it's your turn. Do the math.

As for unemployment, do some research. We were able to reach 4.8% late last year. Find me a lower rate. Go ahead, give it a whirl. Clinton gave us an economy that was steadily expanding and an unemployment not much higher, and Bush improved upon it. Again, do your research. Find me a president who had a lower 4-year average than Bush. (Don't be afraid to try.)

Liberals are the only people on planet earth who would try to pretend that an increase to 5.0% is actually bad. It's phenomenal. If we "rise" to 6.0% the middle class in our country is still nearly the best in the world.

Sorry, when you said 'take the fight', I thought you meant the literal fight. It's true, there have been successful instances of international cooperation and financial actions against terrorism - the kind of 'policework' that whatsisname, Kerry, was laughed at for suggesting.

It's a pity that the invasion of Iraq has worked against such ideas, by poisoning the international atmosphere and also, probably, financing terror through the billions lost and unaccounted for in the chaos (not to mention the millions currently being paid to former 'enemies' there). The lack of decisive success in Afghanistan has also allowed heroin revenue to flow to terrorists again.

But, yes, it's surely fair to say that, apart from the military action in Afghanistan and Iraq, Bush has overseen some successful blows against terrorist organisation.

quote:

In 2000, federal revenues were about $2 trillion. In 2006, federal revenues were $2.6 trillion. Now it's your turn. Do the math.

It's not that simple. Federal revenues, left to themselves, tend to rise anyway. What's debatable is what effect tax cuts had on the rise.

quote:

As for unemployment, do some research. We were able to reach 4.8% late last year. Find me a lower rate. Go ahead, give it a whirl.

How about 3% in 1952 ?

Yes, it actually is that simple. The only way federal revenues go up is with more people paying taxes, and that's the whole idea.

Check your facts so that you won't be so confused.

From 2000 to 2004, personal income taxes plummeted as a result of the tax cuts. By 2006, personal income taxes recovered and were roughly equal to those in 2000.

The reason why total federal revenues went up is because of significant increases in payroll taxes and corporate income taxes, both of which rose about $300 billion each over 6 years. This happened because more people were working (4 1/2 years straight of job growth.)

This is exactly what you would expect if you were an economist. Money in the hands of the government has no "multiplier". Money in the hands of consumers (and borrowers) has a significnat multiplier, where $1 is actually worth several dollars in economic buying power because of the practice of borrowing.

'The national memory often confuses hubris with greatness. That’s good news for George W. Bush...' Redeeming Dubya

quote:

Originally posted by newnickname:

quote:

As for unemployment, do some research. We were able to reach 4.8% late last year. Find me a lower rate. Go ahead, give it a whirl.

How about 3% in 1952 ?

I don't know why, but that comment tickled me more than anything else I have read on AnswerPool so far this month.

I guess it's been a slow month.

I'll admit that "Go ahead, give it a whirl" is among the great setup lines in AP history.

On the other hand...

The High Cost of Bush's Iraq Gambit