[quote name='helava']* Killed/captured 75% of known Al-Qaeda terrorists. (3,000+)
- when asked "75% of what number" - Condi Rice, the National Security Advisor couldn't even pin down whether the number was in the tens, or the hundreds. The official RNC point, incidentally, is 75% of Al Qaeda "leaders," but since no one knows what the number actually is, the statement itself is a bald-faced lie. Not to mention that it doesn't account for the change in their ranks since we've invaded Iraq, which is undoubtedly a tremendous increase in numbers.[/quote]
Hence the term "known" Al-Qaeda. If we don't know they are a terrorist, it isn't included in the 75%. And in case you didn't see, next to it I put the actual number, 3,000+ known terrorists, which is a lot.
* Identified and shutdown numerous charities and organizations funding terrorists.
- in addition to having campaigned in 2000 with a person who had known terrorist ties. Can't specifically remember the name of the guy, but yeah. And it took literally *years* after 9/11 to actively start shutting down known fronts for terrorist fundraising. Why? I have no freakin' clue. Kerry, on the other hand, was responsible for the exposure of the BCCI, which was an international criminal bank, run by Pakistanis, which funded Osama bin Laden in part, in the '80's and '90's.
Putting down the tinfoil hat, many islamic charities, organizations, and individuals that fed terrorists were shutdown under Bush. This is a fact.
* Prevented further domestic al-qaeda terrorist attacks since 9/11.
- possibly, but given how utterly inept he's actually been at tracking down the sources of the problem, and given the substantial *rise* in terrorist activity in the last few years, he's not doing such a good job of actually stopping the source of the problem.
Obviously he's not so inept at tracking it down if over 3,000 al-qaeda have been killed and they haven't been able to hit us again eh? Use common sense. And of course after 9/11 there is going to be a rise in terrorism no matter what we do, it was the biggest victory for terrorists of all time. The difference is, Bush made sure our own soil wasn't the target for that terrorism.
* Began fixing our crippled intel & added provisions for our security (like patriot act & dept of homeland sec.).
- The patriot act is a mess, the department of homeland security is a political tool at the moment - whose most substantial achievements thus far are tracking down Democrats fleeing from an ethically corrupt redistricting movement in Texas, and issuing politically timed terrorist warnings based on known outdated or irrelevant information.
The patriot act has led to the capture of terrorists and/or supporters of terrorists and the dept of homeland security keeps the public in the know. These are both important functions.
* Captured Saddam Hussein, liberated Iraq & Afghanistan.
- If you're going to lay claim to liberating Iraq and Afghanistan, can we also touch on that he's turned both countries into hellholes on the verge of civil wars? Parts of Afghanistan are again run by the Taliban, and Iraq, well, we read about that every day.
Actually reports from soldiers in the front lines show things are going quite well in Afghanistan. Afghanistan was able to hold free elections and had a massive voter turnout. If it was as bad as you claim, they wouldn't be able to have elections or they would have been the victim of a terrorist attack. Obviously Afghanistan is progressing nicely. Iraq is currently a mess, but we are working on it. Al-Qaeda has made Iraq the new battleground, and we are beating them slowly but surely.
* Proved that America is strong and will not stand by and watch after being attacked by Al-Qaeda due to political pressure, as happened several times under previous Clinton administration. (i.e. wtc 1993 bombing, uss cole bombing, mogadishu/"black hawk down")
- ... yeah. Drink the Kool-Aid, man. "America is still strong" in what sense? That we get ourselves into indefensible quagmires, having alienated virtually all of our major allies, squandered incredible post-9/11 goodwill, and created a nexus of terrorist recruitment in Iraq? Marvelous.
Ah, this goes down to the point you didn't know about. France and Russia had deals with Saddam Hussein according to documents we uncovered in Iraq. Saddam gave France and Russia free oil and/or weapons, and in return, France and Russia were supposed to keep Saddam out of trouble in the UN and work for getting sanctions removed off Iraq (so Saddam can pursue his weapons programs again). This is why they didn't want to go to war, they were on Saddam's payroll. And by the way, the US has only one true "major" ally, and has only had one true major ally, and that is the UK - who joined us. It's also better to fight the war on terror on the soil of Iraq than the soil of the United States.
* Helped economy & companies recover from double punch of economic recession handed over by previous Clinton administration along with resounding giant economic shockwaves caused by 9/11 (think about how it affected airlines, hotels, businesses in NYC both small and large, attractions like disney world, stock market, etc). Tax cuts will likely continue to propel the economy upwards in upcoming years.
- Clinton recession? Bullshit. And in terms of the estimated post 9/11 effects of the tax cuts, I believe Bush is more than seven MILLION jobs short of his administration's predictions. The tax cuts aren't working even remotely as well as they were predicted to, and have cost us trillions of dollars in deficit spending.
Yes, Clinton recession, do some research. Economic slowdown began under the Clinton administration during Q3 2000 according to the Commerce Department. i.e.:
http://home.flash.net/~stevew9/opinion/opinion015.htm
The tax cuts are making the economy recover slowly and surely. Again, we had a double puinch of the Clinton-started recession plus 9/11, that is not something where you can just turn around the economy instantly with a magic wand.
* Massively increased NASA funding after 2003 space shuttle disaster, in attempts to revitalize space program & allow us to reach new goals in space.
- Right! On to Mars, bitches!!!
Do you prefer we just allow Russia to zoom past us in terms of space travel technology? You find exploring space unimportant?
* Indirectly unearthed saddam oil for iraq sanctions removal bribery corruption in the U.N. after Iraq war involving France and Russia by going to war without these two countries and finding proof in Iraqi documents - showing that it might not be too smart to consider the UN the end all be all of foreign policy decisions.
- Can't say I know much about the oil-for-food issue, so I'll refrain from saying anything here.
Let me help you out:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041007-123838-3146r.htm
* Initiation of ground-based ballistic missile defense system to help protect us from wackos with nukes like N. Korea.
- Ah, yes. After 18 guys with boxcutters killed 3.000 people, clearly, the best way to defend us is with a ballistic missile defense system that doesn't even work in practical application. Smart. S.M.R.T.
Very smart, because terrorists on our own soil is not the only threat to the US. North Korea has ballistic misslies that they can launch from the comfort of their own military base and hit California with. We can't lose sight of that threat.
* "No Child Left Behind" education act to raise the bar in schools
- And yet not properly fund it, so that educators are tied to these somewhat arbitrary measures of success that they simply don't have the funds to adequately prepare kids for.
Enough funding was alotted, though of course the schools are going to ask for more, and more is always welcome. I'm sure more funding will be provided in the future and that the kinks will be ironed out in time.
* Massive beefing up of military funding
- Really? Seems to me like more moves have been made to restrict funding for veterans' health benefits, and cut combat pay. Oh, maybe it's the two wars he's gotten us into, that have stretched our military so thin that stop-loss programs have been enacted, and memos are flying around about a special-services draft.
Nope, Bush has spent more on the military than any president of recent times. As for the draft bill, it was introduced by Charlie Wrangle, a democrat, and was massively voted down in the senate, even wrangle voted against his own bill. Bush and Rumsfeld have both stated there would be no draft numerous times, as we have more than enough troops in reserve and if we needed more we could just increase the benefits/incentives of joining the military. Also Bush couldn't just re-enact the draft even if he wanted to, Congress would have to authorize it. It is a fairy tale scare tactic conjured up by the DNC to attempt to get Kerry re-elected. If Kerry stays the course as he stated in Iraq, or if we need to go to war again in the future under him due to another attack, we'd be more likely to have a draft under Kerry - because over 3/4 of the military are Bush supporters, and recruitment numbers will likely go down under Kerry because of this.
Sorry, man. Your points, and you, are stupid.
Do some research on what you are talking about before you call someone names.
