[uofmtiger]

Also, a list of accomplishments is available at whitehouse.gov (definitely a better source than above). Here is a short list in the homeland security section.

Like I said, there are a ton of lists out there:

Appointing The Director Of National Intelligence. President Bush signed into law the landmark Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which overhauls the intelligence community, mandating a range of reforms and centralizing in one office key authorities. The Director of National Intelligence (DNI) serves as President Bush's principal intelligence advisor and the leader of the Intelligence Community. The first DNI, Ambassador John Negroponte, was confirmed by the Senate and sworn in this past April.

Establishing The National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC). The NCTC assists in analyzing and integrating foreign and domestic intelligence acquired from all U.S. government departments and agencies pertaining to the war on terrorism. The Center identifies, coordinates, and prioritizes the counterterrorism intelligence requirements of America's intelligence agencies and develops strategic operational plans for implementation. In July 2005, the Senate confirmed the President's nominee, Vice Admiral Scott Redd, to become the first Director of the NCTC.

Establishing The Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO). The DNDO, in the Department of Homeland Security, provides a single federal organization to develop and deploy a nuclear-detection system to thwart the importation of illegal nuclear or radiological materials.

Appointing A Privacy And Civil Liberties Oversight Board. The President has nominated the Chairman and Vice Chairman and appointed the other three members to serve on the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, to further help ensure that privacy and civil rights are not eroded as we fight the War on Terror.

Establishing The Terrorist Screening Center. In order to consolidate terrorist watch lists and provide around-the-clock operational support for Federal and other government law-enforcement personnel across the country and around the world, the Administration created the Terrorist Screening Center. The Center ensures that government investigators, screeners, and agents are working with the same unified, comprehensive set of information about terrorists.

Transforming The FBI To Focus On Preventing Terrorism. The President has led the effort to transform the FBI into an agency focused on preventing terrorist attacks through intelligence collection and other key efforts, while improving its ability to perform its traditional role as a world-class law-enforcement agency.

Strengthening Transportation Security Through Screening And Prevention. Since 9/11 the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has made significant advancements in aviation security, including the installation of hardened cockpit doors, a substantial increase in the number of Federal Air Marshals, the training and authorization of thousands of pilots to carry firearms in the cockpit, the 100 percent screening of all passengers and baggage, and the stationing of explosives-detection canine teams at each of the Nation's largest. These initiatives have raised the bar in aviation security and shifted the threat.

Improving Border Screening And Security Through The US-VISIT Entry-Exit System. US-VISIT uses cutting-edge biometric technology to help ensure that our borders remain open to legitimate travelers but closed to terrorists. US-VISIT is in place at 115 airports, 14 seaports, and 50 land border crossings across the country. Since January 2004, more than 39 million visitors have been checked through US-VISIT.

Establishing The National Targeting Center (NTC) To Screen All Imported Cargo. DHS established the NTC to examine cargo and passengers destined for the United States to identify those presenting the greatest threat. The NTC screens data on 100 percent of inbound shipping containers (9 million per year) to identify those posing a "high risk." CBP personnel examine 100 percent of high-risk containers.

Expanding Shipping Security Through The Container Security Initiative (CSI). The CSI is currently established in over 35 major international seaports to pre-screen shipping containers for illicit or dangerous materials before they are loaded on vessels bound for the United States.

Developing Project Bioshield To Increase Preparedness For A Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Or Nuclear Attack. Project BioShield is a comprehensive effort that will ensure that resources ($5.6 billion) are available to pay for "next-generation" medical countermeasures, expedite the conduct of NIH research and development on medical countermeasures based on the most promising recent scientific discoveries, and give FDA the ability to make promising treatments quickly available in emergency situations. Project BioShield will help protect Americans against a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear attack.

Cracking Down On Terrorist Financing With Our International Partners. Over 400 individuals and entities have been designated pursuant to Executive Order 13224, resulting in nearly $150 million in frozen assets and millions more blocked in transit or seized at borders. We have built an international coalition that is applying more rigorous financial standards and controls to help prevent terrorists' use of the international financial system. Specifically, we have established with the Government of Saudi Arabia a Joint Task Force on Terrorism Finance that serves as a coordinating mechanism to cooperate on important terrorism-financing investigations.

Increasing Cooperation And Reform Among International Partners At The Front Lines Of The War On Terror. In Pakistan over the next five years, we will provide more than $3 billion in security, economic, and development assistance to enhance counterterrorism capacity and promote continued reform, including of the education system. In the last three years, the United States provided more than $4.5 billion in reconstruction, economic, and security assistance programs to Afghanistan.

[timzerofive]

Originally Posted by JB 330ci

I see no reason why this deal should not go through. If people would take the time to view the facts and not listen to "talking heads" people would know the real reasons.

-If anyone ever visited the UAE people would know that the US miitary depends on this same company for the security of ports in the UAE...If it's good enough for the military overseas where there is a bigger chance of an attack than I think it is good enough for the US.

- U.S. Ports have been ran by foreign compaines for years. The only reason this hit the spot light is because it's an Arab company from the UAE. No one complained about the British running our ports.

- The U.S. Customs and Coast Guard will still guard the US and secure the ports. The company is for operations at the port, and security at the port to deter crime. Federal Agencies still control and will control who can enter, exit, and who can dock at ports. This is why we have a Coast Guard and Customs.

- UAE has and still remains one of the countries supporting the GWOT. I could see if Iran, Syria, or Nigeria tried to run our ports but in reality the UAE is a moderate country...has anyone been to Dubai? It's a great place.

It's not really the fact that UAE ran company will be running our ports (although they have some connections with the terrorists who attacked us on 911), its the fact that Bush's administration first claimed to have no knowledge of this until it has been approved. Then his statement that he'll veto anything lawmakers might try to pass to have this approval reconsidered. He is basically saying, screw whatever the mass has to say, I already made up my mind and that's it. Granted, probably none of the politicians over there has the people's best interest at heart, and this controversy might just be the power struggle between some large financier in the back ground. However, it's the fact that Bush missed one again, AND that what he said makes him look like he think's he's the king of the world.

The list of accomplishments seemed to be dwarfed in significance when viewed side by side with the "accomplishments" listed on the earlier list. It's like saying, this is a good guy, even though he robbed thousands of dollars from banks, raped 20 women, kidnap 5 children, but he had donated $5 to the red cross, held open the restaraunt door last wednesday, and after he raped this one woman he drove her home instead of dumping her by the lake.

There's a correlation between population density and color of votes not because of urban and suburban population. In fact, LA, NY, SF ... all has significant suburban communities around them. It's more of a difference between modern and rural area. Red states tend to have more population spread out over large rural areas, which leads to the huge coverage of red. It's not they live out in large houses with large yards, its more of they live out in houses with 3 miles between each residence.

[uofmtiger]

The list of accomplishments seemed to be dwarfed in significance when viewed side by side with the "accomplishments" listed on the earlier list

Not sure I agree, but the first list has already been shown to be bogus (for the most part). If I made a list saying he cured cancer and heart disease it would be impressive, but the truth is what is important. That was my whole point to begin with.

As a side note, I am not sure how a statement like "50 million people who had lived under tyrannical regimes now live in freedom" is insignificant, but to each his own. I am just glad I was not born into a tyrannical regime and was given freedom as a birthright.

[timzerofive]

Originally Posted by uofmtiger

As a side note, I am not sure how a statement like "50 million people who had lived under tyrannical regimes now live in freedom" is insignificant, but to each his own. I am just glad I was not born into a tyrannical regime and was given freedom as a birthright.

I think the jury is still out on whether invading Iraq was an accomplishment or not. For Bush personally it definitely has been, how it has benefitted the US I'm still wondering. If "freedom" is really the key of invading Iraq, then why Iraq? Why not Cuba? So a statement like "50 million people who had lived under tyrannical regimes now live in freedom" is really taken out of context if you want to say that's a proof of positive accomplishment for Bush. The fact is not all that 50 million people wanted things to change. The fact also shows that not all those 50 million people are still alive.

[uofmtiger]

think the jury is still out on whether invading Iraq was an accomplishment or not.

Removing Saddam was an accomplishment whether you want to admit it or not. Just about every Democrat and Republican is on record to say he was a threat. Here is a quick sampling of just some Democrat statements:

The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

There are tons more if you want me to site them. My point is that removing this threat was an accomplishment.

For Bush personally it definitely has been, how it has benefitted the US I'm still wondering.

It removed him as a threat to the US. That was the benefit. If you are arguing that he was not a threat, then you are only questioning the intelligence. If there was a fault with the intelligence, it was directly related to the "WALL" put up during the Clinton administration (see China funding or Jamie Gorelick).

Every politician on both sides thought he was a danger. This includes the harshest critics of the war:
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

If "freedom" is really the key of invading Iraq, then why Iraq? Why not Cuba?

No one said it was the key (see above), but it was an accomplishment that happened as a result of going to war. When we fought the Nazis, there was oppression in Russia. That does not negate the fact that we helped free people in concentration camps.

While freeing people was an accomplishment, it was not the main goal of the war (in either case).

fact is not all that 50 million people wanted things to change. The fact also shows that not all those 50 million people are still alive.

A lot more people were killed during WWII. This does not mean that Germany and its people did not benefit in the long run. I would guess that Nazis were also against change.

There were are lot of people exercising their freedom by voting in Iraq. Many risked their lives for that opportunity. We could discuss the oppression that was going on in that country of the Kurds and women and why freedom is important whether people that are doing the oppressing like it or not, but in the long run, I think the world will benefit from democracy taking hold in that region. This is why freeing 50 million people is significant regardless of whether it was the main goal or whether or not some people did not want it.

[uofmtiger]

I would also like to mention that Gore & Kerry (for you Blue states) were both on record saying that he was a danger. Here is a sample:

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

Also Clinton, who put up the wall, was on record many times stating the same threat:

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

His secretary of defense also thought he had them:

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

M point is that the BLUE STATES were sold a bill of goods that these people were against the war with Iraq, but in fact, they voted to give that power and they helped sell the idea that Saddam was a dangerous threat AND had WMD.

[timzerofive]

And yet with all the "opinions" you've put down, it is still pretty much a guaranty a republican won't be voted into office for quite a while again. You've listed ALL controversial acts made by Bush that in no way has a majority of people knodding their head.

Removing Saddam was an accomplishment, for better of for worse, it IS still up in the air, no matter how much you want it to be a positive accomplishment. I'm neither a democrat nor a republican, so quoting Democrats doesn't really mean too much to me. It just tells me there are supporters on both sides, nevertheless, he also has plenty of bipartisan movement against him.

Threat or not, Bush set out during the war to capture Osama, not fight Iraq. He conviniently invaded into Iraq when he couldn't do much in the Afganistan. Apparently not EVERYBODY thought he was a threat, that's why the UN refused to go along with the invasion.

You said his accomplishment was freeing 50 million people from a tyrannical ruler. Are you saying that's not what he set out to do when he started the war? If that is what he set out to do, why Iraq? Why not the other people under tyranny? When we fought the Nazi, it was for freedom. What else could it be for? Europe was under the rule of a madman and a horrible party movement. U.S.' freedom also fell under threat when we were attacked by the Nazi's axis ally.

Finally, when the allies invaded into German's home turf, it was because of WWII... you know, when Germany invaded other countries, just like when Iraq invaded Kuwait. The first Gulf war, although somewhat controversial, was justified. It was also over in 100 hr, and troops pulled out of Iraq afterwards. Iraq and Saddam didn't invade anyone this time! Bush's only excuse was WMD, which we all know how that played out. Then they turn it around and started saying how much of a cold blooded killer Saddam was, THAT's why they invaded a soverign nation. But wait... isn't Fidel the same way? Guess what, they're closer too!

As far as the statements Clinton and Gore or any other politician made agreeing with him as a threat... unless you are totally oblivious with how this whole system works, that's something they have to say at the time. A country at war with practically the whole world against us, do you really think any politician will harshly criticize our own country's act, even when they know it's wrong? Just like in a family, a pair of sibling might fight with each other all the time and hate everything each other does, but when an outsider is accusing one sibling of doing something bad, you know the other sibling will come in his defense no matter how much they know their sibling's wrong. These politician had to stand on the same front with the United States to defend their country's action against other nations. These politicians also had to stand on the same front as their fellow politicians when they are being accused of running the country based on their personal financial agenda.

[uofmtiger]

And yet with all the "opinions" you've put down, it is still pretty much a guaranty a republican won't be voted into office for quite a while again.

Yep! That is what they were saying in the last election. We know who won that one!

I'm neither a democrat nor a republican

Sound like a nice safe place to be. Did you vote for anybody? We had two "legitimate" choices for President, Bush and Kerry (2004) and Bush and Gore (2000). ALL were on record as saying Saddam was a threat to the US (as shown above).

he also has plenty of bipartisan movement against him.

After the fact. The guys on the Dem side flipped and flopped. That is why Kerry lost! The vote to go to war was 77-23 in the Senate and the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133. For the record, the 1991 War did not get as many votes in the House or the Senate.

A country at war with practically the whole world against us, do you really think any politician will harshly criticize our own country's act, even when they know it's wrong?

YOu are kidding me..They made most of their tatements BEFORE THE WAR and they voted FOR the war.

When we fought the Nazi, it was for freedom. What else could it be for? Europe was under the rule of a madman and a horrible party movement. U.S.' freedom also fell under threat when we were attacked by the Nazi's axis ally.

We did not fight for the German people's freedom (we would have joined in much earlier if that was the case), we went to war to defeat Hitler AFTER we realized he was a threat to our country. The freedom of the oppressed people was a side benefit of taking out Hitler and was part of the accomplishment.

With Iraq, sitting on our hands while resolutions are being broken one after another was not a way to handle a tyrannical dictator that posed a threat to this country. That is why a majority of the Blue State Senators and Congress members voted for the war.

[uofmtiger]

country at war with practically the whole world against us, do you really think any politician will harshly criticize our own country's act, even when they know it's wrong?

This statement requires its own post:

Yes, the same Dems that voted to give the President the power to go to war and made most of the statements above (BEFORE THE WAR) are now criticizing the war in the harshest terms. In many cases, they are hypocritical enough to call the President a liar despite saying the exact same things he was saying after seeing the same information.

This is called a flip flop and it is why the country (in the map above) is filled with red counties.

I will let you have the last word on this. The red counties won, so go on complaining.... I know it is much easier than having a real agenda. The facts are out there if you want to take the time to find them.

[noflash]

Originally Posted by sdorn

This ridiculous list, which is mostly false, was released several years ago prior to the last election. Guess what, no one believed all the lies then, and no one does now. In fact, Bush was re-elected in 2004. How could that have happened if all of the stuff in this list was true? Don't you think just about everything in this list would have been great talking points for Kerry's campaign? Don't you think the moderators at the debates would have just loved to grill Bush about stuff like this if it were true?

Before people go digging up lists of crap off the internet, how about doing some research and write about something they actually know? They could read a book or two (the kind without pictures), listen to some AM talk radio (Air America is a good liberal source; Sean Hannity, Neil Boortz, Rush Limbaugh are all good conservative sources), read some newspapers (Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, etc.), and even watch some news shows on television. Maybe after they spend a few months learning a little something about the subject they are talking about they can come back and write an intelligent, well thought out argument for their position. They can even put it in list form, as long as they write it themself rather than copying and pasting something they found on the internet.

The reason I didn't write the list myself is that it'd take days to compile the list of how he has hurt America and it makes my blood boil.

Bottom line is that his only agenda is to keep the rich rich and to keep the poor scared and poor. And if you don't realize that then you must be rich. Good for you.

GREAT ADVICE on using AM radio over the Internet.

Enjoy living in your fantasyland. GB is the greatest president of fantasyland ever! Let's all give ourselves taxcuts and then maybe some no-bid contracts for Haliburton! Woo Hoo!

[noflash]

I just stole this list from another thread. I am Cutting and Pasting! Try and stop me!

Originally Posted by BellasBmw

Ann Richards on How to Be a Good Republican:

1. You have to believe that the nation's current 8-year prosperity was due to the work of Ronald Reagan and George Bush, but yesterday's gasoline prices are all Clinton's fault.

2. You have to believe that those privileged from birth achieve success all on their own.

3. You have to be against all government programs, but expect Social Security checks on time.

4. You have to believe that AIDS victims deserve their disease, but smokers with lung cancer and overweight individuals with heart disease don't deserve theirs.

5. You have to appreciate the power rush that comes with sporting a gun.

6. You have to believe...everything Rush Limbaugh says.

7. You have to believe that the agricultural, restaurant, housing and hotel industries can survive without immigrant labor.

8. You have to believe God hates homosexuality, but loves the death penalty.

9. You have to believe society is color-blind and growing up black in America doesn't diminish your opportunities, but you still won't vote for Alan Keyes.

10. You have to believe that pollution is OK as long as it makes a profit.

11. You have to believe in prayer in schools, as long as you don't pray to Allah or Buddha.

12. You have to believe Newt Gingrich and Henry Hyde were really faithful husbands.

13. You have to believe speaking a few Spanish phrases makes you instantly popular in the barrio.

14. You have to believe that only your own teenagers are still virgins.

15. You have to be against government interference in business, until your oil company, corporation or Savings and Loan is about to go broke and you beg for a government bail out.

16. You love Jesus and Jesus loves you and, by the way, Jesus shares your hatred for AIDS victims, homosexuals, and President Clinton.

17. You have to believe government has nothing to do with providing police protection, national defense, and building roads.

18. You have to believe a poor, minority student with a disciplinary history and failing grades will be admitted into an elite private school with a $1,000 voucher.

PLEASE write one about Democrats. But keep it civil, please.

[eleven24]

I say forget partisan politics and just make the entire country purple. Anybody who is 100% on either side of the fence really needs to have their head examined.

The latest uproar over over this Port issue isn't so much about a company from the UAE taking control. It is about the smugness that Bush demonstrated when he said he would slap any opposition with a Veto. Such a statement tells the American people (who are represented by those in Congress) that "I could care less what you think, my Administration and I are right and you are wrong".

[noflash]

Originally Posted by eleven24

I say forget partisan politics and just make the entire country purple. Anybody who is 100% on either side of the fence really needs to have their head examined.

The latest uproar over over this Port issue isn't so much about a company from the UAE taking control. It is about the smugness that Bush demonstrated when he said he would slap any opposition with a Veto. Such a statement tells the American people (who are represented by those in Congress) that "I could care less what you think, my Administration and I are right and you are wrong".