Why GWB will be one of the greatest Presidents in MY LIFETIME...

[Faun]

Right... It was just too expensive to free 28 million people and keep 2.9 children from starvation.
That money should have never been spent and Saddam should be in power today doing what these 32 democrat quotes insisted including Al Gore who said:
in 1992.`He,'' meaning Saddam Hussein, ``had already launched poison gas attacks repeatedly, and Bush looked the other way.
He had already conducted extensive terrorism activities, and Bush looked the other way.
He was already deeply involved in the efforts to obtain nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.
Bush knew it, but he looked the other way.
Congressional Chronicle - C-SPAN Video Library

"..deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMD".Bill Clinton,1998
"..most brutal dictators of Century", Biden,1998
"Iraq compliance with Resolution 687 becomes shell game"..Daschle 1998
"He will use those WMDs again,as he has ten times since 1983" ..Berger Clinton Ntl. Secur. Advr 1998
"posed by Iraq's refusal to end its WMD programs" Levin 1998
"Saddam has been engaged in development of WMDs which is a threat.."Pelosi 1998 WHERE'D SHE GET THIS INFORMATION BEFORE BUSH?
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building WMDS.."Albright 1999
"Saddam to refine delivery systems, that will threaten the US..."Graham 2001
"Saddam has ignored the mandate of the UN and is building WMDs and the means to deliver.." Levin 2002
"Iraq's search for WMDs ...will continue as long as Saddam's in power"..Gore 2002
"Saddam retains stockpiles of WMDS.."Byrd 2002
"..give President authority to use force..to disarm Saddam because an arsenal of WMDs..threat our security"..Kerry 2002
"..Unmistakable evidence Saddam developing nuclear weapons next 5 years.."Rockefeller 2002
"Violated over 11 years every UN resolution demanding disarming WMDs.."Waxman 2002
"He's given aid,comfort & sanctuary to al Qaeda members..and keep developing WMDs"..Hillary 2002
"Compelling evidence Saddam has WMDs production storage capacity.." Graham 2002
"Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... 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 .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."Kerry , Jan. 23. 2003.

There are millions of children dying from starvation every year in Africa ...

Aid For Starving Children - Formerly known as African American Self Help Foundation, Dayton, OH - Home

.. what are you doing about it ... ?

Well for one thing I'm NOT BASHING anyone that is helping like you Bush BASHERS that forget 2.9 million kids would have STARVED if your hero were still in power in Iraq! Another thing I don't bash any President that helped 28 million raise their per capita over 1,290% since Saddam was removed.. but again
you don't WANT people to succeed or be free right? It is a waste!
Under Saddam Iraqi per person was $518! Today it is over $7,200! a 1,290% increase !
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/iz.html

Sounds to me like the answer is .... you're doing nothing about it.

That's what I thought.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Boy you really have GREAT 20/20 hindsight! HOW does that monday morning quarterback chair fit you???

So "making sure security policies" enforced.. buying one-way ticket no luggage..."
Wow you really are naive aren't you regarding how airline terminals work.. how airlines work.. really really naive!

“We didn’t have thousands of federal air marshals that we do today,” said TSA Spokesperson Nico Melendez. “We didn’t have pilots with guns in the cockpit as we do today.”
Ten years ago, Nico’s employer, the Transportation Security Administration didn’t even exist.
“In that first year of the TSA we had to hire 55,000 people and put technology in 450 airports,” said Melendez while standing near the security checkpoint at Sky Harbor.

How airport security was before 9/11

NOW WAIT... weren't you the one complained about Bush spending like a drunken sailor???
55,000 people at $40,000 a year is for them $2.2 billion more a year ADDED to Bush's drunken sailor spending!

After 9/11, the U.S. Congress created the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration.
Nearly $8 trillion was spent on what is called "security," Chris Hellman of the National Priorities Project estimates.
After 9/11, the Senate voted 100 to zero to federalize airport security. was that BUSH that PUSHED 100 senators??? WOW what power for being such an idiot!
Has Our Security Since 9/11 Been Worth $8 Trillion? | Fox News

BUT if we had ONLY LISTENED to YOU!!
watch out for one way ticket buyers no luggage...GEEZ your expertise would have SAVED billions!
One question... IF the solution was simply watching one way ticket buyers.. who would do the watching? What would be done? Who would be notified?
What charges would hold the one way ticket buyer on? didn't have the Patriot Act did we!!!

Just think ... that $2.2 billion per year was spent in just one week in Iraq. That $2.2 billion would have been a drop in the bucket if it could have prevented an attack.

At any rate, who knows where you came up with the figure of 55,000 employees. My suggestion was to beef up security in the areas around the northeast where the threats seemed viable. And I would not have recommended keeping them in place indefinitely; only until the threat passed. So the actual cost would have been far less than your overinflated figure of $2.2 billion.

The answer to your question is the folks who already worked at the airport. There were already many security policies in place before 9.11; but due to complacency, many were ignored. Raising airport security would have raised alertness to the people working at the airports who weren't really paying attention to anything suspicious.

My suggestion was to beef up security in the areas around the northeast where the threats seemed viable.

Why were threats only viable in the northeast?
Couldn't a plane be highjacked anywhere and flown to the northeast?

And I would not have recommended keeping them in place indefinitely; only until the threat passed.

As long as there are Muslims who think killing infidels earns virgins in paradise, there will be a threat.

Your post and thinking make sense. I may not agree entirely with your suggestion, but I do agree that:
(a) the threat is and was real;
(b) the threat is continuing;
(c) pretending that there is no threat is not ever going to work;
(d) doing something about the threat is legitimate and even imperative; and
(e) we, collectively, have sufficient smarts to come up with a better way of addressing the threat than the ways we have undertaken so far.

 

[Faun]

Boy you really have GREAT 20/20 hindsight! HOW does that monday morning quarterback chair fit you???

So "making sure security policies" enforced.. buying one-way ticket no luggage..."
Wow you really are naive aren't you regarding how airline terminals work.. how airlines work.. really really naive!

“We didn’t have thousands of federal air marshals that we do today,” said TSA Spokesperson Nico Melendez. “We didn’t have pilots with guns in the cockpit as we do today.”
Ten years ago, Nico’s employer, the Transportation Security Administration didn’t even exist.
“In that first year of the TSA we had to hire 55,000 people and put technology in 450 airports,” said Melendez while standing near the security checkpoint at Sky Harbor.

How airport security was before 9/11

NOW WAIT... weren't you the one complained about Bush spending like a drunken sailor???
55,000 people at $40,000 a year is for them $2.2 billion more a year ADDED to Bush's drunken sailor spending!

After 9/11, the U.S. Congress created the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration.
Nearly $8 trillion was spent on what is called "security," Chris Hellman of the National Priorities Project estimates.
After 9/11, the Senate voted 100 to zero to federalize airport security. was that BUSH that PUSHED 100 senators??? WOW what power for being such an idiot!
Has Our Security Since 9/11 Been Worth $8 Trillion? | Fox News

BUT if we had ONLY LISTENED to YOU!!
watch out for one way ticket buyers no luggage...GEEZ your expertise would have SAVED billions!
One question... IF the solution was simply watching one way ticket buyers.. who would do the watching? What would be done? Who would be notified?
What charges would hold the one way ticket buyer on? didn't have the Patriot Act did we!!!

Just think ... that $2.2 billion per year was spent in just one week in Iraq. That $2.2 billion would have been a drop in the bucket if it could have prevented an attack.

At any rate, who knows where you came up with the figure of 55,000 employees. My suggestion was to beef up security in the areas around the northeast where the threats seemed viable. And I would not have recommended keeping them in place indefinitely; only until the threat passed. So the actual cost would have been far less than your overinflated figure of $2.2 billion.

The answer to your question is the folks who already worked at the airport. There were already many security policies in place before 9.11; but due to complacency, many were ignored. Raising airport security would have raised alertness to the people working at the airports who weren't really paying attention to anything suspicious.

My suggestion was to beef up security in the areas around the northeast where the threats seemed viable.

Why were threats only viable in the northeast?
Couldn't a plane be highjacked anywhere and flown to the northeast?

And I would not have recommended keeping them in place indefinitely; only until the threat passed.

As long as there are Muslims who think killing infidels earns virgins in paradise, there will be a threat.

Because that's where the threat was. The PDB mentioned New York and Washington. So what harm would it have been for Bush to have airport security raised at airports in the northeast? It might have prevented a hijacking.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Just think ... that $2.2 billion per year was spent in just one week in Iraq. That $2.2 billion would have been a drop in the bucket if it could have prevented an attack.

At any rate, who knows where you came up with the figure of 55,000 employees. My suggestion was to beef up security in the areas around the northeast where the threats seemed viable. And I would not have recommended keeping them in place indefinitely; only until the threat passed. So the actual cost would have been far less than your overinflated figure of $2.2 billion.

The answer to your question is the folks who already worked at the airport. There were already many security policies in place before 9.11; but due to complacency, many were ignored. Raising airport security would have raised alertness to the people working at the airports who weren't really paying attention to anything suspicious.

My suggestion was to beef up security in the areas around the northeast where the threats seemed viable.

Why were threats only viable in the northeast?
Couldn't a plane be highjacked anywhere and flown to the northeast?

And I would not have recommended keeping them in place indefinitely; only until the threat passed.

As long as there are Muslims who think killing infidels earns virgins in paradise, there will be a threat.

Your post and thinking make sense. I may not agree entirely with your suggestion, but I do agree that:
(a) the threat is and was real;
(b) the threat is continuing;
(c) pretending that there is no threat is not ever going to work;
(d) doing something about the threat is legitimate and even imperative; and
(e) we, collectively, have sufficient smarts to come up with a better way of addressing the threat than the ways we have undertaken so far.

Security more like the Israelis would be a good idea.
With our number of travelers, that is probably unworkable.
Young Muslim men should definitely get an extra examination.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Just think ... that $2.2 billion per year was spent in just one week in Iraq. That $2.2 billion would have been a drop in the bucket if it could have prevented an attack.

At any rate, who knows where you came up with the figure of 55,000 employees. My suggestion was to beef up security in the areas around the northeast where the threats seemed viable. And I would not have recommended keeping them in place indefinitely; only until the threat passed. So the actual cost would have been far less than your overinflated figure of $2.2 billion.

The answer to your question is the folks who already worked at the airport. There were already many security policies in place before 9.11; but due to complacency, many were ignored. Raising airport security would have raised alertness to the people working at the airports who weren't really paying attention to anything suspicious.

My suggestion was to beef up security in the areas around the northeast where the threats seemed viable.

Why were threats only viable in the northeast?
Couldn't a plane be highjacked anywhere and flown to the northeast?

And I would not have recommended keeping them in place indefinitely; only until the threat passed.

As long as there are Muslims who think killing infidels earns virgins in paradise, there will be a threat.

Because that's where the threat was. The PDB mentioned New York and Washington. So what harm would it have been for Bush to have airport security raised at airports in the northeast? It might have prevented a hijacking.

What increase in security would have prevented anything?
You have any specifics?

 

[Faun]

My suggestion was to beef up security in the areas around the northeast where the threats seemed viable.

Why were threats only viable in the northeast?
Couldn't a plane be highjacked anywhere and flown to the northeast?

And I would not have recommended keeping them in place indefinitely; only until the threat passed.

As long as there are Muslims who think killing infidels earns virgins in paradise, there will be a threat.

Because that's where the threat was. The PDB mentioned New York and Washington. So what harm would it have been for Bush to have airport security raised at airports in the northeast? It might have prevented a hijacking.

What increase in security would have prevented anything?
You have any specifics?

I just mentioned some in an earlier post. And who knows if it would have prevented the attack? Maybe it would have; maybe it wouldn't have. But doing nothing certainly wasn't going to prevent it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Because that's where the threat was. The PDB mentioned New York and Washington. So what harm would it have been for Bush to have airport security raised at airports in the northeast? It might have prevented a hijacking.

What increase in security would have prevented anything?
You have any specifics?

I just mentioned some in an earlier post. And who knows if it would have prevented the attack? Maybe it would have; maybe it wouldn't have. But doing nothing certainly wasn't going to prevent it.

Why would anything you mentioned earlier have stopped anyone?
Unless you want to prevent Muslim men from getting on a plane?

 

[Faun]

What increase in security would have prevented anything?
You have any specifics?

I just mentioned some in an earlier post. And who knows if it would have prevented the attack? Maybe it would have; maybe it wouldn't have. But doing nothing certainly wasn't going to prevent it.

Why would anything you mentioned earlier have stopped anyone?
Unless you want to prevent Muslim men from getting on a plane?

Doing so worked in the past. It could have worked again. Like I said, we'll never know. But doing nothing was not going to prevent the attack.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I just mentioned some in an earlier post. And who knows if it would have prevented the attack? Maybe it would have; maybe it wouldn't have. But doing nothing certainly wasn't going to prevent it.

Why would anything you mentioned earlier have stopped anyone?
Unless you want to prevent Muslim men from getting on a plane?

Doing so worked in the past. It could have worked again. Like I said, we'll never know. But doing nothing was not going to prevent the attack.

When in the past did we prevent Muslim men from getting on planes?

 

[depotoo]

I just mentioned some in an earlier post. And who knows if it would have prevented the attack? Maybe it would have; maybe it wouldn't have. But doing nothing certainly wasn't going to prevent it.

Why would anything you mentioned earlier have stopped anyone?
Unless you want to prevent Muslim men from getting on a plane?

Doing so worked in the past. It could have worked again. Like I said, we'll never know. But doing nothing was not going to prevent the attack.

Mind giving us examples?

Before the September 11, 2001 attacks, most hijackings involved the plane landing at a certain destination, followed by the hijackers making negotiable demands. Pilots and flight attendants were trained to adopt the "Common Strategy" tactic, which was approved by the FAA. It taught crew members to comply with the hijackers' demands, get the plane to land safely and then let the security forces handle the situation. Crew members advised passengers to sit quietly in order to increase their chances of survival. They were also trained not to make any 'heroic' moves that could endanger themselves or other people. The FAA realized that the longer a hijacking persisted, the more likely it would end peacefully with the hijackers reaching their goal.[12] The September 11 attacks presented an unprecedented threat because it involved suicide hijackers who could fly an aircraft and use it to delibrately crash the airplane into buildings for the sole purpose to cause massive casualties with no warning, no demands or negotiations, and no regard for human life. The "Common Strategy" approach was not designed to handle suicide hijackings, and the hijackers were able to exploit a weakness in the civil aviation security system. Since then, the "Common Strategy" policy in the USA and the rest of the world to deal with airplane hijackings has no longer been used.

Aircraft hijacking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Faun]

Why would anything you mentioned earlier have stopped anyone?
Unless you want to prevent Muslim men from getting on a plane?

Doing so worked in the past. It could have worked again. Like I said, we'll never know. But doing nothing was not going to prevent the attack.

When in the past did we prevent Muslim men from getting on planes?

In 1998, we prevented Muslim terrorists from getting on planes to commit criminal acts.

This was accomplished by raising airport security. That's why I suggest had Bush taken even that minimal action, he could have possibly prevented the attack.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Doing so worked in the past. It could have worked again. Like I said, we'll never know. But doing nothing was not going to prevent the attack.

When in the past did we prevent Muslim men from getting on planes?

In 1998, we prevented Muslim terrorists from getting on planes to commit criminal acts.

This was accomplished by raising airport security. That's why I suggest had Bush taken even that minimal action, he could have possibly prevented the attack.

In 1998, we prevented Muslim terrorists from getting on planes to commit criminal acts.

Do you have a link?

 

[Faun]

When in the past did we prevent Muslim men from getting on planes?

In 1998, we prevented Muslim terrorists from getting on planes to commit criminal acts.

This was accomplished by raising airport security. That's why I suggest had Bush taken even that minimal action, he could have possibly prevented the attack.

In 1998, we prevented Muslim terrorists from getting on planes to commit criminal acts.

Do you have a link?

Sure ... http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report.pdf (pg 128)

On Friday, December 4, 1998, the CIA included an article in the Presidential Daily Brief describing intelligence, received from a friendly government, about a threatened hijacking in the United States. This article was declassified at our request.

The same day, Clarke convened a meeting of his CSG to discuss both the hijacking concern and the antiaircraft missile threat. To address the hijacking warning, the group agreed that New York airports should go to maximum security starting that weekend. They agreed to boost security at other East coast airports. The CIA agreed to distribute versions of the report to the FBI and FAA to pass to the New York Police Department and the airlines. The FAA issued a security directive on December 8, with specific requirements for more intensive air carrier screening of passengers and more oversight of the screening process, at all three New York City area airports.

The intelligence community could learn little about the source of the information. Later in December and again in early January 1999, more information arrived from the same source, reporting that the planned hijacking had been stalled because two of the operatives, who were sketchily described, had been arrested near Washington, D.C. or New York. After investigation, the FBI could find no information to support the hijack threat; nor could it verify any arrests like those described in the report. The FAA alert at the New York area airports ended on January 31, 1999.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In 1998, we prevented Muslim terrorists from getting on planes to commit criminal acts.

This was accomplished by raising airport security. That's why I suggest had Bush taken even that minimal action, he could have possibly prevented the attack.

In 1998, we prevented Muslim terrorists from getting on planes to commit criminal acts.

Do you have a link?

Sure ... http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report.pdf (pg 128)

On Friday, December 4, 1998, the CIA included an article in the Presidential Daily Brief describing intelligence, received from a friendly government, about a threatened hijacking in the United States. This article was declassified at our request.

The same day, Clarke convened a meeting of his CSG to discuss both the hijacking concern and the antiaircraft missile threat. To address the hijacking warning, the group agreed that New York airports should go to maximum security starting that weekend. They agreed to boost security at other East coast airports. The CIA agreed to distribute versions of the report to the FBI and FAA to pass to the New York Police Department and the airlines. The FAA issued a security directive on December 8, with specific requirements for more intensive air carrier screening of passengers and more oversight of the screening process, at all three New York City area airports.

The intelligence community could learn little about the source of the information. Later in December and again in early January 1999, more information arrived from the same source, reporting that the planned hijacking had been stalled because two of the operatives, who were sketchily described, had been arrested near Washington, D.C. or New York. After investigation, the FBI could find no information to support the hijack threat; nor could it verify any arrests like those described in the report. The FAA alert at the New York area airports ended on January 31, 1999.

If they caught no terrorists, how can you prove they stopped any attack?

 

[healthmyths]

In 1998, we prevented Muslim terrorists from getting on planes to commit criminal acts.

This was accomplished by raising airport security. That's why I suggest had Bush taken even that minimal action, he could have possibly prevented the attack.

In 1998, we prevented Muslim terrorists from getting on planes to commit criminal acts.

Do you have a link?

Sure ... http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report.pdf (pg 128)

On Friday, December 4, 1998, the CIA included an article in the Presidential Daily Brief describing intelligence, received from a friendly government, about a threatened hijacking in the United States. This article was declassified at our request.

The same day, Clarke convened a meeting of his CSG to discuss both the hijacking concern and the antiaircraft missile threat. To address the hijacking warning, the group agreed that New York airports should go to maximum security starting that weekend. They agreed to boost security at other East coast airports. The CIA agreed to distribute versions of the report to the FBI and FAA to pass to the New York Police Department and the airlines. The FAA issued a security directive on December 8, with specific requirements for more intensive air carrier screening of passengers and more oversight of the screening process, at all three New York City area airports.

The intelligence community could learn little about the source of the information. Later in December and again in early January 1999, more information arrived from the same source, reporting that the planned hijacking had been stalled because two of the operatives, who were sketchily described, had been arrested near Washington, D.C. or New York. After investigation, the FBI could find no information to support the hijack threat; nor could it verify any arrests like those described in the report. The FAA alert at the New York area airports ended on January 31, 1999.

Very good information. Appreciate it as it helps explain some reticence to add to government bureaucracy that Bush detested.
One point many people are unaware of is the other 2 components of the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 that most people think is the Part D component.
But MMA reduced Medicare contractors from over 500 distinct Medicare claim paying entities to less then 50. This saved a lot of waste in Medicare.

As I've said frequently GWB was very busy trying to rebuild the economy in the midst of a recession that had its start in 2000.
As I and others have pointed out turning an economy that is trending down is like turning an oil tanker or aircraft. You don't just make a right turn.. it takes miles and hours.
And so one of the first efforts was STIMULATING the economy by reducing the amount of money tax payers took OUT of the economy! In addition GWB saw how wasteful
500+ distinct claim processing contractors could be reduced and that effort was started.

But Bush Bashers being totally ignorant of these efforts to
A) Reduce government expenditures
B) Increase government revenues by reducing tax payments...

These are the facts folks and considering the 4 external extreme, earth shaking events that cost over $8 trillion, nearly 3 million jobs... destroyed businesses that paid taxes..
THAT"S why I've said GWB will be considered one of the GREATEST Presidents from the 50s to to 2016... my lifetime!!!

 

[Faun]

In 1998, we prevented Muslim terrorists from getting on planes to commit criminal acts.

Do you have a link?

Sure ... http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report.pdf (pg 128)

On Friday, December 4, 1998, the CIA included an article in the Presidential Daily Brief describing intelligence, received from a friendly government, about a threatened hijacking in the United States. This article was declassified at our request.

The same day, Clarke convened a meeting of his CSG to discuss both the hijacking concern and the antiaircraft missile threat. To address the hijacking warning, the group agreed that New York airports should go to maximum security starting that weekend. They agreed to boost security at other East coast airports. The CIA agreed to distribute versions of the report to the FBI and FAA to pass to the New York Police Department and the airlines. The FAA issued a security directive on December 8, with specific requirements for more intensive air carrier screening of passengers and more oversight of the screening process, at all three New York City area airports.

The intelligence community could learn little about the source of the information. Later in December and again in early January 1999, more information arrived from the same source, reporting that the planned hijacking had been stalled because two of the operatives, who were sketchily described, had been arrested near Washington, D.C. or New York. After investigation, the FBI could find no information to support the hijack threat; nor could it verify any arrests like those described in the report. The FAA alert at the New York area airports ended on January 31, 1999.

If they caught no terrorists, how can you prove they stopped any attack?

Ummm, there was no attack. I'd say that's a pretty good indication. Besides, it was reported that two of the terrorists may have been arrested. Though that was not confirmed.

 

[Faun]

In 1998, we prevented Muslim terrorists from getting on planes to commit criminal acts.

Do you have a link?

Sure ... http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report.pdf (pg 128)

On Friday, December 4, 1998, the CIA included an article in the Presidential Daily Brief describing intelligence, received from a friendly government, about a threatened hijacking in the United States. This article was declassified at our request.

The same day, Clarke convened a meeting of his CSG to discuss both the hijacking concern and the antiaircraft missile threat. To address the hijacking warning, the group agreed that New York airports should go to maximum security starting that weekend. They agreed to boost security at other East coast airports. The CIA agreed to distribute versions of the report to the FBI and FAA to pass to the New York Police Department and the airlines. The FAA issued a security directive on December 8, with specific requirements for more intensive air carrier screening of passengers and more oversight of the screening process, at all three New York City area airports.

The intelligence community could learn little about the source of the information. Later in December and again in early January 1999, more information arrived from the same source, reporting that the planned hijacking had been stalled because two of the operatives, who were sketchily described, had been arrested near Washington, D.C. or New York. After investigation, the FBI could find no information to support the hijack threat; nor could it verify any arrests like those described in the report. The FAA alert at the New York area airports ended on January 31, 1999.

Very good information. Appreciate it as it helps explain some reticence to add to government bureaucracy that Bush detested.
One point many people are unaware of is the other 2 components of the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 that most people think is the Part D component.
But MMA reduced Medicare contractors from over 500 distinct Medicare claim paying entities to less then 50. This saved a lot of waste in Medicare.

As I've said frequently GWB was very busy trying to rebuild the economy in the midst of a recession that had its start in 2000.
As I and others have pointed out turning an economy that is trending down is like turning an oil tanker or aircraft. You don't just make a right turn.. it takes miles and hours.
And so one of the first efforts was STIMULATING the economy by reducing the amount of money tax payers took OUT of the economy! In addition GWB saw how wasteful
500+ distinct claim processing contractors could be reduced and that effort was started.

But Bush Bashers being totally ignorant of these efforts to
A) Reduce government expenditures
B) Increase government revenues by reducing tax payments...

These are the facts folks and considering the 4 external extreme, earth shaking events that cost over $8 trillion, nearly 3 million jobs... destroyed businesses that paid taxes..
THAT"S why I've said GWB will be considered one of the GREATEST Presidents from the 50s to to 2016... my lifetime!!!

Speaking of links .... don't you owe a link showing Bush touting a recession as the reason for his tax cuts, which was your claim?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sure ... http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report.pdf (pg 128)

On Friday, December 4, 1998, the CIA included an article in the Presidential Daily Brief describing intelligence, received from a friendly government, about a threatened hijacking in the United States. This article was declassified at our request.

The same day, Clarke convened a meeting of his CSG to discuss both the hijacking concern and the antiaircraft missile threat. To address the hijacking warning, the group agreed that New York airports should go to maximum security starting that weekend. They agreed to boost security at other East coast airports. The CIA agreed to distribute versions of the report to the FBI and FAA to pass to the New York Police Department and the airlines. The FAA issued a security directive on December 8, with specific requirements for more intensive air carrier screening of passengers and more oversight of the screening process, at all three New York City area airports.

The intelligence community could learn little about the source of the information. Later in December and again in early January 1999, more information arrived from the same source, reporting that the planned hijacking had been stalled because two of the operatives, who were sketchily described, had been arrested near Washington, D.C. or New York. After investigation, the FBI could find no information to support the hijack threat; nor could it verify any arrests like those described in the report. The FAA alert at the New York area airports ended on January 31, 1999.

If they caught no terrorists, how can you prove they stopped any attack?

Ummm, there was no attack. I'd say that's a pretty good indication. Besides, it was reported that two of the terrorists may have been arrested. Though that was not confirmed.

Yeah, they arrested no one, based on no proof, awesome!
Bush should have done the same thing........

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sure ... http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report.pdf (pg 128)

On Friday, December 4, 1998, the CIA included an article in the Presidential Daily Brief describing intelligence, received from a friendly government, about a threatened hijacking in the United States. This article was declassified at our request.

The same day, Clarke convened a meeting of his CSG to discuss both the hijacking concern and the antiaircraft missile threat. To address the hijacking warning, the group agreed that New York airports should go to maximum security starting that weekend. They agreed to boost security at other East coast airports. The CIA agreed to distribute versions of the report to the FBI and FAA to pass to the New York Police Department and the airlines. The FAA issued a security directive on December 8, with specific requirements for more intensive air carrier screening of passengers and more oversight of the screening process, at all three New York City area airports.

The intelligence community could learn little about the source of the information. Later in December and again in early January 1999, more information arrived from the same source, reporting that the planned hijacking had been stalled because two of the operatives, who were sketchily described, had been arrested near Washington, D.C. or New York. After investigation, the FBI could find no information to support the hijack threat; nor could it verify any arrests like those described in the report. The FAA alert at the New York area airports ended on January 31, 1999.

Very good information. Appreciate it as it helps explain some reticence to add to government bureaucracy that Bush detested.
One point many people are unaware of is the other 2 components of the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 that most people think is the Part D component.
But MMA reduced Medicare contractors from over 500 distinct Medicare claim paying entities to less then 50. This saved a lot of waste in Medicare.

As I've said frequently GWB was very busy trying to rebuild the economy in the midst of a recession that had its start in 2000.
As I and others have pointed out turning an economy that is trending down is like turning an oil tanker or aircraft. You don't just make a right turn.. it takes miles and hours.
And so one of the first efforts was STIMULATING the economy by reducing the amount of money tax payers took OUT of the economy! In addition GWB saw how wasteful
500+ distinct claim processing contractors could be reduced and that effort was started.

But Bush Bashers being totally ignorant of these efforts to
A) Reduce government expenditures
B) Increase government revenues by reducing tax payments...

These are the facts folks and considering the 4 external extreme, earth shaking events that cost over $8 trillion, nearly 3 million jobs... destroyed businesses that paid taxes..
THAT"S why I've said GWB will be considered one of the GREATEST Presidents from the 50s to to 2016... my lifetime!!!

Speaking of links .... don't you owe a link showing Bush touting a recession as the reason for his tax cuts, which was your claim?

Here's a lefty link.

President George Bush Tax Cuts Facts

 

[Faun]

If they caught no terrorists, how can you prove they stopped any attack?

Ummm, there was no attack. I'd say that's a pretty good indication. Besides, it was reported that two of the terrorists may have been arrested. Though that was not confirmed.

Yeah, they arrested no one, based on no proof, awesome!
Bush should have done the same thing........

There was no attack. That was awesome. Too bad Bush did nothing to prevent an attack. Maybe he could have thwarted 9.11.