Me,alone?

Step away from the bong.

I think if you believe the talking points from those opposed to Bush, you can get that sentiment.  I have plenty of bones to pick with him and his decision-making process, but this isn't one of them, and shouldn't be.  I personally don't feel he is trying to get folks to live in fear, I think he is trying to point out that we do, in fact, life in a different era than we used to.  And part of living in that era is being cognizant of the fact that there are, in fact, folks that would prefer us dead...and that coddling those folks does not do us any good.

Bush has never asked people not to travel, to put their lives on hold, to hide in the basement, to stop buying things and save all their money for the approaching end of the world...nothing of the sort.  Instead, what did he say in his first major speech after 9/11?  He urged Americans to walk outside with their heads held high.  He urged them to get on those planes the moment the FAA reopened airspace.  He urged us all to go shopping, maybe buy that car we were thinking of purchasing earlier, maybe treat ourselves to something special, knowing that this money would help prop up an economy rattled by nerves.  He did his best to soothe the populace while asking that we merely be prepared in case anything were to happen again.

When he ran in 2004, he mentioned terrorism because it was a place where he could differentiate himself from John Kerry.  Bush was correct that he had taken steps to protect Americans...uncluding widely unpopular and possibly overbroad steps like the PATRIOT Act, etc.  Historical analysts who have reviewed his speeches and are smarter than I am do not agree that he played on fear...he merely did what all candidates do.  He harped repeatedly on what he felt his central accomplishment had been.  In his case, it was protecting Americans from a second major attack at home.  He didn't have much more to tout, so that was his schtick.

Looking at it objectively and not emotionally, I think that becomes pretty clear.  The problem is that so many of us disagree with the man that we're too willing to jump on whatever paints him as a villain.  In this particular case, I think it is a bit of a stretch.

http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.html

Take a look at this. Some of the leading causes of death in the US

Major Cardiovasular Diseases 936,923

Chronic Lower Resperitory Dis. 122,009

Motor Vehicle Accidents 43,354

Firearms 28,663

OMG OMG OMG

Looks like we do a fine job killing ourselves with Firearms far more than terrorists do and that was only in one year. Look at the cardiovascular disease, too much McDonalds for us. With all those motor vechicle accidents we better start a war on cars. Jhall your stats are boring and pointless.

You better lookout they are plotting against Maricopa as we speak. Were you one of the people that bought land in the desert due to the year 2000 scare?

In that case, the issue is not George W Bush, it is your own fear.  His using a word for folks who are legitimately out there and legitimately want to harm us isn't fearmongering, it is keeping us informed of a real possibility.  Put it this way...if he said nothing and we were hit again by a large-scale terror attack, how would we all feel knowing that President Bush had known about this and said nothing to warn us?  See what I'm getting at?  It's an unwinnable position from his perspective...so he keeps us all informed as best he can in order to help us stay prepared.

Fearing anything else such as rising gas prices is fine, there is room for that too.  But accusing Bush of fearmongering is simply too much a stretch for those who rely on analysis and not emotion. 

As for the matter at hand...you mention that terrorism is your number one concern.  Do you believe a candidate with almost no national experience whatsoever can enter a job with the world's steepest learning curve and keep us safer than someone with more command-level experience?

Fearing anything else such as rising gas prices is fine, there is room for that too.  But accusing Bush of fearmongering is simply too much a stretch for those who rely on analysis and not emotion. 

Bush did fearmonger. Everytime the administration was catching heat around the last election the terror level would rise. I haven't heard a thing about the terror level since. Bush also inferred that if you elected a Democrat the country would be unsafe, nonsense.

I would rather have someone with little experience and the fire in their belly than someone who is corrupt and knows how to get away with it.

http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.html

Take a look at this. Some of the leading causes of death in the US

Major Cardiovasular Diseases 936,923

Chronic Lower Resperitory Dis. 122,009

Motor Vehicle Accidents 43,354

Firearms 28,663

OMG OMG OMG

Looks like we do a fine job killing ourselves with Firearms far more than terrorists do and that was only in one year. Look at the cardiovascular disease, too much McDonalds for us. With all those motor vechicle accidents we better start a war on cars. Jhall your stats are boring and pointless.

Jhall's just upset that he had flat feet and couldn't inlist in the navy.

It happens.

My question was this:  Since you have mentioned that you find terrorism to be your biggest concern, what gives you the feeling that someone with no relatable experience would be the best choice to counter that?

Again, all subjective and ripped from leftist talking points.  I think the terror alert system is pretty ridiculous but there was no correlation between the raising of alert levels and the Bush Administration "catching heat."  Primarily, this is an impossible point to make because the definition of "catching heat" varies from one person to the next.  Not to mention the fact that the Bush Administration has been "catching heat" for years (some it it quite justifiable, in my opinion) which makes it impossible to pick a certain time to parse.  Beyond that, the terror alert level was raised only when there were credible and/or actionable threats received.  This information was not only never in dispute by anyone inside our outside the Administration (even those Democrats privy to the information), it was corroborated by George Tenet, a Clinton appointee who was known to be no fan of President Bush.

Bush's inference that the electing of a Democrat would lead to less stability wasn't fearmongering any more than Kerry's "we need to end this war before more of them come after us" schtick was.  It was typical election-year drivel designed to point out the opponent's weakness.  Kerry wished to call it a day in Iraq, Bush thought that would open it up into a Somalia-like terrorist haven.  His inference, however silly, was based on that notion and that notion alone.  If one wishes to call that fearmongering, then one has to accept that Kerry and his side offered the exact same thing in reverse.  I don't think either of it is true...I think both just tried to paint the other as hell-bent on sending us in the wrong direction.  Typical election-year verbiage.

I agree with your assessment of Mrs. Clinton, so I can understand that sentiment somewhat.  But what of Obama's corrupt dealings with Rezko? 

If anyone actually thought Obama had "fire in the belly," that thought disappeared last night when he ran out of a press conference in which reporters finally started asking him the sorts of questions they'd been asking other candidates all along.  It was rather embarrassing to behold, and was yet another piece of evidence pointing towards his being a bit too green for the position he seeks.

GG, I don't understand what you're implying. I feel like, of our wonderful choices of candidates, John McCain would give terrorism the most attention. I don't think he underestimates the capabilities of Al Qaeda. Wouldn't you say he has more experience with it than Clinton or Obama?

Hardly... but thanks for putting words in my mouth.... Don't you have some trees to save or something to protest at?

O drummergirl... you know me so well... *shakes head in confusion*  So how did that self validation topic go? Everyone still think you're a twelve year old girl trapped in a 45 year old perverts body?

Again personal attacks because you can not argue a position intelligently like GilaGuy.