This is why in 20 years Bush will be regarded as a good prez. Just like Truman, Bush has the correct policy for the long-term win. But it is a hard fought deal and in the short-term the weak (DEMS) get nervous. http://www.nypost.com/seven/0719200...ists/al_qaedas_market_crash_120538.htm?page=0 IF you think the US markets have problems, look at the value of al Qaeda shares throughout the Muslim world: A high-flying political equity just a few years ago, its stock has tanked. It made the wrong strategic investments and squandered its moral capital. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Osama bin Laden was the darling of the Arab street, seen as the most successful Muslim in centuries. The Saudi royal family paid him protection money, while individual princes handed over cash willingly: Al Qaeda seemed like the greatest thing since the right to abuse multiple wives. Osama appeared on T-shirts and his taped utterances were awaited with fervent excitement. Recruits flocked to al Qaeda not because of "American aggression," but because, after countless failures, it looked like the Arabs had finally produced a winner. What a difference a war makes. Yes, al Qaeda had little or no connection to Saddam Hussein's Iraq - but the terrorists chose to declare that country the main front in their struggle with the Great Satan. Bad investment: Their behavior there was so breathtakingly brutal that they alienated their fellow Muslims in record time. Fighting enthusiastically beside the once-hated Americans, Iraq's Sunni Muslims turned on the terrorists with a vengeance. Al Qaeda's response? It kept on butchering innocent Muslims, Sunni and Shia alike. Iraq exposed al Qaeda as a fraud. Where do Osama & Co. stand today? They're not welcome in a single Arab country. The Saudi royals not only cut off their funding, but cracked down hard within the kingdom. A few countries, such as Yemen, tolerate radicals out in the boonies - but they won't let al Qaeda in. Osama's reps couldn't even get extended-stay rooms in Somalia, beyond the borders of the Arab world. And the Arab in the (dirty) street is chastened. Instead of delivering a triumph, al Qaeda brought disaster, killing far more Arabs through violence and strife than Israel has killed in all its wars. Nobody in the Arab world's buying al Qaeda shares at yesterday's premium - and only a last few suckers are buying at all. Guess what? We won. The partisan hacks who insisted that Iraq was a distraction from fighting al Qaeda have missed the situation's irony: Things are getting worse in Afghanistan and Pakistan not because our attention was elsewhere, but because al Qaeda has been driven from the Arab world, with nowhere else to go. Al Qaeda isn't fighting to revive the Caliphate these days. It's fighting for its life. Unwelcome even in Sudan or Syria, the Islamist fanatics have retreated to remote mountain villages and compounds on the Pakistani side of the Afghan border. That means Afghanistan's going to remain a difficult challenge for years to come - not a mission-impossible, but an aggravating one. But we all need to stand back and consider how much we've achieved: A terrorist organization that less than a decade ago had global appeal and reach has been discredited in the eyes of most of the world's billion-plus Muslims. No one of consequence in the Arab world sees al Qaeda as a winner anymore. Even fundamentalist clerics denounce it. For all of our missteps, Iraq's been worth it. How is it that the media missed this stunning victory? Will they start to admit it after Nov. 4? Yes, al Qaeda remains dangerous. It's a wounded hog still grunting down in the canebrake: More innocent people will be gored - and it's going to take a lot of pig-sticking to finish it off. But I'm proud of one call I made last year: The prediction that the "Sunni flip" in Iraq's Anbar Province marked the high-water mark for al Qaeda. Increasingly, that call looks correct. Democrats make a great fuss over the Bush administration's failure to capture Osama (although they themselves have no idea how to do so). But it now looks like the judgment of history - after the political rancor has settled into the graves of today's demagogues - will be that the administration of George W. Bush defeated al Qaeda. There's plenty of work still to be done. Al Qaeda will behave viciously in its death throes. Other terrorist groups await their turn to appall the world. But the second-greatest irony of our time is that, fumbling all the way, the Bush administration did what it set out to do after 9/11: It exacted vengeance on those who attacked us and toppled their towers - al Qaeda's fantastic dreams of global jihad. So what's the greatest irony? The president's oft-mocked declaration of "Mission Accomplished" wasn't wrong, after all - just premature.
Always a pleasure to see an idiot waste time writing long delusional forum posts. GWB is USA's all-time low for president through history.
Nice spin attempt,but total bullshit Bush is the worse president ever and 20 years from now he will still be considered the worse president ever. 200 years from now bush will still be considered the worse president ever
Mercor, the fact that you are not embarrassed Bush is your president tells me everything I need to know. The remainder of your post is superfluous. But thanks anyway.
You're retarded. 9/11 the CIA and even the white house knew about, but they allowed it to happen so that the public would be supportive of war in the middle east. There is no increased safety to the American public as a result of Bush's war in Iraq or "war on terror" - just the opposite in fact, we have even more enemies now - but safety was never the goal. It's all about the oil and opium money. If you go through history all our foreign occupations were for corporate interests. How these nationalist patriotic zealots who don't realize the true intentions of their leaders and how our foreign policy is just a scam to take money from taxpayers and funnel it into the hands of certain corporations can be so stupid is beyond me.
If you go through history all our foreign occupations were for corporate interests. -------------------- I would hope so for two reasons. If it is for charity, we have Hollywood to raise money for charity. Benefits with private money to solve the world problems, hunger, aids etc.. If it for political reasons, well then that is just downright uncapitalistic.
Actually, I believe that message is for the American people, among others. And it comes as no surprise that his most articulate messages are nonverbal.
Bush seems to like Obama. Bush has followed Obamas advice about attacking Al Queda in Pakistan,trying diplomacy before war with Iran,and now he's agreeing to setting "A time Horizon on withdrawing from Iraq" If Bush had been listening to people like Obama rather then Chaney be might have been a pretty good president