30 responses so far ↓

• 1 Dominique // Jul 25, 2008 at 7:30 am

  Economy. The odds of being impacted by a terrorist attack are infinitesimally small. The economy hits me every single freaking day. I tear up a little every time I open my 401K/IRA statement, don’t you?

• 2 anon // Jul 25, 2008 at 7:36 am

  If the economy collapses, the terrorists win.

  Win the war on terrorism by keeping the economy strong.

• 3 Pandora // Jul 25, 2008 at 7:50 am

  If it wasn’t for the war on terror would the economy be better?

• 4 anon // Jul 25, 2008 at 8:14 am

  If it wasn’t for the war on terror would the economy be better?

  Short ansywer is “No.”

  Trick question though… if by WOT you mean Iraq, then yes - Iraq is dragging our economy down - with the debt it requires, as well as the oil prices it creates.

  But Iraq is not the real WOT…

  The actual WOT is probably a good thing for the economy. That includes regime change in Afghanistan (until we abandoned it for Iraq, that is).

  But the most important part of the real WOT is the international legal and financial cooperation to catch and stop actual terrorists, and to break up Wahhabi financing rings. That too is good for international economies.

  But by driving up worldwide oil price, the occupation of Iraq has done more to finance terrorism than anything else. Not to mention screwing up economies with the “Bush premium” on oil.

• 5 Pandora // Jul 25, 2008 at 8:20 am

  Should have been more specific! Yes, I was referring to Iraq. However, I’m glad I wasn’t specific since I hadn’t really considered your points or that that War on Terror consisted of anything other than Iraq now. Guess I’ve been suckered in by the Bush/MSM meme of Iraq = terror as well!

• 6 Andy // Jul 25, 2008 at 8:57 am

  BTW when we go back into Afghanistan are we going to bust up the opium poppy economy over there bringing in the Herioin over here

• 7 Delaware's Toughest Blogger // Jul 25, 2008 at 9:44 am

  uh, not if the President of Afgh has anything to do with it we won’t. He is blocking us NOW from stopping it.

• 8 mike w. // Jul 25, 2008 at 10:14 am

  Can I choose neither? I’d prefer Obama/McCain not meddle with the economy at all. I certainly don’t want Obama + a Democratic Congress meddling with the Economy. The Dems (I believe it was Chucky Schumer) were partially responsible for the housing collapse we’re in right now.

  Iraq - We’re going to be withdrawling regardless of who’s President, but I’d rather do it based on the situation IN Iraq rather than haphazardly based purely on ideology.

• 9 mike w. // Jul 25, 2008 at 10:16 am

  “BTW when we go back into Afghanistan are we going to bust up the opium poppy economy over there bringing in the Herioin over here”

  Yup, we do that shit, destroy their livelihood, and then wonder why they hate us. All the “War on Drugs” does is waste money and breed terrorists.

• 10 delawaredem // Jul 25, 2008 at 10:17 am

  How could that possibly be true? How quickly you forget that the Rethugs controlled the Congress and the Presidency before 2006. The Housing bubble began popping before the Democrats took power in 2007 in Congress.

• 11 Pandora // Jul 25, 2008 at 10:22 am

  Oh, DD, didn’t you know that according to Mike (a “self” described Libertarian) that everything is the Dem’s fault?

• 12 Delaware's Toughest Blogger // Jul 25, 2008 at 10:33 am

  mike

  your niavety is so cute

• 13 Von Cracker // Jul 25, 2008 at 10:37 am

  War on Drugs = War on Your Neighbor

  War on Terror = Increased Value of Cheney’s 401k

• 14 mike w. // Jul 25, 2008 at 10:45 am

  In 2001 Schumer took the lead in passing a bill that eased lending restrictions for banks. The purpose was to open up the housing market to the poor by making it easier to get mortgages (that they really couldn’t afford, and that the banks really shouldn’t have been offering)

• 15 liberalgeek // Jul 25, 2008 at 10:49 am

  Ummm. I wonder how Schumer “took the lead” as a party in the minority, while the majority ran each committee and the Congress with an iron fist?

  That Chuck Schumer, he’s a wiley one, doing all that without a Republican to help.

• 16 Delaware's Toughest Blogger // Jul 25, 2008 at 10:55 am

  bipartisan congress geek…duh. when the GOP was running things, everyone got along and worked together

• 17 mike w. // Jul 25, 2008 at 11:07 am

  “when the GOP was running things, everyone got along and worked together.”

  Haha of course……

  I like it more when it’s chaotic. The less Congress can get done the better.

• 18 Delaware's Toughest Blogger // Jul 25, 2008 at 11:13 am

  the more you talk the less you seem to know about what your government has done the past 8 years

• 19 mike w. // Jul 25, 2008 at 11:31 am

  And you seem to have the attitude that because I dislike Obama, Pelosi etc. that I’m a “Bush Lover.” That’s not even close to the truth. I’ll be just as glad as you to see him go. He’s an authoritarian and not much else.

  You fixate far too much on the last 8 years of history while forgetting all history before that. I can’t stand Obama because his idea of “Change” is to re-try policies that history has proven to be failures.

• 20 Dana // Jul 25, 2008 at 11:42 am

  The war against Islamism is far more important, because te government doesn’t control the economy in the first place. At best, government nibbles around the margins, with decent or punitive tax rates, but our government cannot be said to control the economy in the least.

• 21 mike w. // Jul 25, 2008 at 11:50 am

  Which is good. The more they try to “control” it the worse it gets.

  The war on terror is extremely important, although I think we need to recognize that we can’t win it by military means alone. It’s a matter of winning over hearts & minds and destroying the culture that allows radical islam to grow.

• 22 delawaredem // Jul 25, 2008 at 11:51 am

  LOL. War on Islamism. You wingnuts are just hysterical. Make up your minds. Is our war on Terror against Al Queda or against all of Islam and all Muslims everywhere? I always thought you batshit crazies had a genocidal desire to kill all Muslims, but you always hide it.

• 23 mike w. // Jul 25, 2008 at 12:00 pm

  Which is why I phrased it as “radical Islam.” I understand that 99.99% of those who practice Islam do not hate us and are not terrorists.

• 24 Dist // Jul 25, 2008 at 12:04 pm

  Honestly, Mike, you’re right about the “99% are not terrorists”, but the hate part? From what I’ve seen firsthand, which I attribute to 8 years of Bush, is pretty much the entire world fed up with us. And by ‘us’, I mean our government. Come to think of it, we’re pretty fed up with our government too.

• 25 delawaredem // Jul 25, 2008 at 12:07 pm

  Mike–

  I wasn’t talking to you. I was referring to the person who described the war on Terror as a war on Islamism.

• 26 mike w. // Jul 25, 2008 at 12:15 pm

  Dist - I don’t like Bush’s indiscriminant sabre-rattling anymore than most folks here do, but I shudder at the thought of Barack “Jimmy Carter” Obama’s approach to world politics. His “let’s hold hands and sing kumbaya” approach has a terrible track record as U.S. foreign policy.

  It just seems like with Obama we’ll be going from one end of the spectrum to the other on foreign policy. I assure you our enemies are gleefully awaiting an Obama Presidency.

• 27 Pandora // Jul 25, 2008 at 12:31 pm

  Mike, why must you take Obama’s statement about “talking” with other nations and portray it as “let’s hold hands and sing Kumbaya”? He’s said nothing of the kind. For the 8 years we have shunned diplomacy… and where has that gotten us? At war with basically NO international support.

  What would have happened if Bush tried talking before jumping head first into war? Answer: Who the hell knows since Bush was going into Iraq no matter what. Geez, his rash behavior gave our allies the perfect excuse to sit this war out (or commit half-heartedly).

  AND… if you don’t like Bush, why are you voting for McCain? Why not just sit this election out?

• 28 mike w. // Jul 25, 2008 at 1:13 pm

  Because I love this country more than I dislike McCain. That and I think it’s my civic duty to vote.

  By the way, what was the UN going to do to Saddam to get him to do what they wanted? Sanctions? Already tried that? Resolutions? He’d been violating those since 1991. Weapons Inspectors? Didn’t work, and he kicked them out in 1998 without any consequences from the UN. How was MORE talking amongst the UN going to accomplish anything?

• 29 Pandora // Jul 25, 2008 at 1:29 pm

  Guess we’ll never know. Which is my point. Perhaps if Bush had tried acting like a grown-up instead of a John Wayne caricature other countries would have jumped on board. Sometimes, Mike, diplomacy is about showing others that you’ve really tried.

• 30 mike w. // Jul 25, 2008 at 1:38 pm

  And when someone (like Saddam) gives “diplomacy” the finger…..what then? You just say “you’re a bad man, you can’t do that?” That’s like threatening to punish a child and then not following through. Saddam learned that the UN (and U.S.) were a joke and that he could actively ignore them without consequences.

  If diplomacy hasn’t been working you don’t just keep trying it. If Israel took that approach they wouldn’t exist right now.

Leave a Comment