<p>ucsd<em>ucla</em>dad: you said the key word: ‘effective.’ That’s just it. Bush’s ‘stategery’ (sorry, couldn’t resist!) of dealing with terror has NOT been effective! If anything, what he has done is make the situation worse.</p>
<p>And, if their real focus was on proctecting us, then they would’t be abusing 911 for political gain.</p>
<p>I do agree with you, however, that the Deomocrats aren’t offering much in the way of alternatives. Both parties are generally corrupt to some degree. I’m voting straight-ticket Democrat because that’s the only hope of getting the lying ‘president’ who started this mess impeached, but I have no illusions that all will be peachy with the Democrats offsetting the Republican stranglehold on the House & Senate. </p>
<p>(are you UCLAri’s dad by any chance? If so, did he tell you about the lengthy discussion he and I had about ‘911 Mysteries’?)</p>
<p>I actually think there have been some effective results in the ‘war on terrorism’. There’s no question that the Al Queda network has been seriously disrupted and we’ve actually made it 5 years without another attack on our homeground (although I don’t doubt that it could/will happen again). I don’t agree with the hand-off approach of ‘if we leave them alone, they’ll leave us alone’ (not your words - I know) since this is essentially the approach Clinton took and it didn’t work. It didn’t work during WWII either although the US tried. I also don’t think the USA or other free countries should submit to bullying by these increasingly bold fanatical organizations who will use whatever means necessary to destroy our way of life.</p>
<p>A pet peeve of mine is to hear politicians (or anyone) simply restate problems or complain about existing policies without offereing concrete plans of how they’d solve the issue. Anyone can state what the problem is, it takes real thought, work, and some guts to actually be willing to offer a plan to resolve the issue and then let the people vote for the party with the plan they believe will solve the problems. I think this was a major hit for Kerry in the last election when he kept his plans ‘secret’ and said he’d only state them ‘after’ he became president. We already know what the current administration is doing regarding the issue of terrorism and some people agree with it wholeheartedly, some agree with hit but with the realization that one can’t predict or dictate every twist and turn in a war, and some absolutely disagree with the approach. What I’d like to see from those who disagree and from the democratic party are their concrete plans for how they’d effectively address the issue. If i was convinced that their approach would me more effective that that of the republicans, I might vote for them since I believe this is the most important issue facing America today. They’re giving me nothing to vote for though. Their platform seems to be only to vote ‘against’ the other party rather than ‘for’ them.</p>
<p>Nope - I’m not UCLAri’s dad. I don’t know what discussions the two of you had but I’m not much of a believer in the government conspiracy theories if that’s what you’re talking about. I don’t believe the government blew up the WTC, attacked the Pentagon themselves, or blew up levees in New Orleans. I think we have enough problems to keep us busy without inventing false ones.</p>
<p>I agree completely with what you said about people complaining about policies without offering alternatives.</p>
<p>As for 911: I’ve had enough of that debate so won’t respond to your comments other than to say that there is a lot more to it than empty ‘conspiracy theories.’ People are doing the very thing you said they should do: tackling difficult questions and researching the issue and being proactive and offering alternatives. But because people already have their minds made up and refuse to even consider those alternatives, nothing gets done.</p>
<p>leal - you misunderstood my use of ‘so over’. I meant ‘I give up’ on both Clinton and Bush. Not that their actions are dismissed from my mind. Far from that; I will never forget the lies.</p>
<p>^ See…this is why threads die with little accomplished. You HAVE to be willing to look at an issue from both sides, with pragmatism in place and as much as possible, bias aside. There are legitimate complaints about Bush, and about Clinton, (and Blair, and the French, and so on.) And in the case of both Clinton and Bush, there have been positive accomplishments as well. But no one wants to have a discussion with another who is extreme and entrenched in their position and uses over the top expressions like ‘bring Bush to justice’ or comparing the upcoming election to a means to ‘impeach the lying president.’ That is just toooo much. It’s not worth the effort.</p>
<p>So in the words of the wonderful Ben Stiller…“Focker OUT!”</p>