We're safer because we have have more confidence from our allies and less hostility and distrust from others.=Lent Visor

I'm pretty certain the US was in no danger from its allies and which "others" are now less hostile and more trusting.

Let me blow a hole in your little glas boat....( only need the one shot )

Red writes:
"To suggest that these people are fine with permanent military bases in the lands is to display a very fundamental form of liberal paternalism. It also suggests that you believe the Saudis, or Iranians should be able to build permanent military bases in America and tell Americans how to live."

Where in the hell do we have bases, other then current war zones, that are being kept there by force. To my knowlege military bases are there by agreement. Current News, when Germany told us to move we did so.

Please tell me where you come up with this crap. OH! And I believe that the US just walked into another country and tested weapons without permission.

Just a thought here, could it have been maybe a JOINT VENTUER?

As soon as hear someone use the term NEOCON, 95% of the time they are ful of crap!

GO for, Change my mind, show me the proof.

AND IT JUST KEEPS GETTING FUNNIER!

We're safer because we have have more confidence from our allies and less hostility and distrust from others. Hopefully, we'll also begin to see the end of two wars. We also have generally more competent leadership.

It might at some emotional level make some people feel safer to think we are "acting" or "fighting" or even just throwing money around, but it doesn't achieve anything.

It was Bush's term that saw 9/11, the nonresponse to Katrina, North Korea developing nuclear weapons, increasing Iranian belligerence, etc. He made everything worse through his administrations inability to handle diplomacy.

But lets forget him and look to a better example. Clinton was able to keep North Korea from developing weapons, despite a hostile congress.

What Neal is saying is that the Obama administration is building permanent military bases in other countries, spending money on unaffordable wars, leaving troops stationed in hundreds of countries where they shouldn't be, still throwing billions of taxpayer dollars at Israel and much more to middle eastern countries(that hate America), and allowing the federal reserve to print money out of thin air. The Bush administration did precisely and specifically all of these very same things, yet we are supposed to believe that there is some type of difference here? I guess really the next question we have to ask is how does the same mean different? Obama is Bush's 3rd term, the quicker people begin to figure this out and accept this unshakable, unarguable ugly truth, the quicker we can get back to the ideas of Thomas Jefferson.

First off - I'd rather believe Cheney than a plagiarist and one who doesn't even know where the role of VP is in the Constitution.
Second - to Hugo's ghost (11:05) Your post was not funny, but lousy. I blame 9/11 on Clinton since his administration had many instances to get him. Example: June 1, 2000, Mansoor Iajaz met with a prominent member of the UAE. They offered to meet with Clinton with options of capturing Bin Laden (this wasn't even the first time). Ijaz met with John Podesta at the WH in July 2000. Podesta's response to Ijaz was that Clinton had too many fundraising rallies to take time to meet. He told Ijaz if Clinton met with one Arab state it might show favortism. According to Ijaz, he then asked about Gore. Gore's staff rejected the letter from the UAE. Too much fundraising to do.
Third - In 2000, the CIA and defense dept. told Richard Clarke there were no ships in the easter Mediterranean. He was told just "intelligence chatter" in that area. The problem: CENTCOM started sending Navy ships to refuel in Aden, Yemen. In September 2000, the U.S.S. Cole was attacked.
So, the next time you want to blame Bush that it "was on his watch", please look at the steps Clinton didn't take when it came to al Queda and Bin Laden.

You said:

"If you use conservative logic (that Clinton was responsible for 9/11 and the first Bush recession) then anything that Obama screws up for the first, oh say, 8 months he is in office is really George Bush's fault. See how easy that is?"
By Hugo's ghost @ 04/08/09 11:05:42

First off, the 9/11 attacks were preceded by smaller easier to execute plans: U.S Embassy attacked in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi , Kenya and don't forget the Cole. Clinton did nothing to retaliate against al Qaida for these attacks. These simpler attacks showed the terrorist that they could carry out their big plan on 9/11.

Second the 2000 recession was caused by the collapse of the dot com bubble which has no correlation to any President...unless you want to tie in the Clinton Era Interest rate increases at the end of 1999 and the beginning of 2000 (this coupled with the Y2K scare supsiding). These events are what fed into the crazed fool Barney Frank & Co. into force feeding the housing legislation through and getting Fannie and Freddie on board. Hence our current situation.

Clinton perpetrated 9/11 and his cabinet accentuated the dot com bubble recession all the while his Democrat constituents put the regulations in place to cause the current fiasco.

May I also remind you that Bush responded to 9/11 and he also liberated a country in the process (ask an Iraqi which version of Iraq they prefer...I have....its not the pre Bush one).

Obama is doing nothing but furthering the liberal agenda the Clinton started. With one exception: Clinton's idea of liberalism on a scale of 1-10, maybe 7..Barry O's....>10.

Also Bush tried to stop the current fiasco in 2003 (along with J. McCain) with legislation to reel in Fannie and Freddie...but the Dems (headed by Barney and including Obambi) stopped it cold.

See how easy that was....now I can only hope you can comprehend it.

I think you twisted your sentence there. But if you add back in the stimulus bill, TARP (split between Bush and Obama they both wanted it) and the various spending then I think you see a much bigger number

So what exactly did the previous administrations do to stop them from firing off rockets? Nothing. Hell, under the previous admin they openly said they were building them to defend against us and then proceeded to shoot them. We did NOTHING except go along with a UN resolution that you say yourself is worthless.

Rob Evans, You need to check your facts. Obama included ALL the WAR spending in his defense budget (and several nondefense items). Under Bush those were done as off budget supplemental spending bills. While I think it is more honest to put the expected war expenses in the budget as Obama has done, it leads to apples-to-oranges comparisons between the two administrations budgets. The 2008 Bush Defense budget was $481.554 billion. After the additional appropriations for the war, the expenditure was $647.166 billion. Obama is spending $533 billion that is a DECREASE of 114+ BILLION DOLLARS. Please stop drinking the Obama kool-aid and check the messiah’s facts-they are usually wrong but sound fantastic, but that is all he needs.

I thought people liked us thanks to Clinton. Bush got into office, and then 911 happened. Everyone supported us...until we actually took action. So, what good is it to be liked as long as we don't take action? We spent a whole year going through the UN before going into Iraq. What did that get us? Nothing.

A real measure of the respect we generated was the fact that Libya decided to openly disarm after Bush showed he was serious. Maybe there is no attack on US soil in the next 4 years, but I think it would be premature to claim success for Obama. See what nations back off of arming themselves, and compare that to which nations grow in power, while we sit idly by.

Amazing how perspectives change based on who is in office. North Korea has never actually stopped shooting missiles regardless of who holds office. They stuck their thumb in the eye of the previous administration at least 4 times. In 2006 they announced they plan to test missiles to defend themselves against us. They then fire off a whole slew of them, including the long range variety. What did the previous admin do about it? Nothing. They relied only on a UN resolution. Funny how Neal never said that shows our Pres to be weak then. Only now when it is an evil liberal. Sure thing.

HOW many attacks occurred on US soil after 911? ZERO. That had NOTHING to do with Obama, you fool. Obama is CUTTING defense budgets, so that means he is WEAKENING our defensive capabilities. You're living proof that liberalism is a mental disorder.

The real test to see if we are safer under Obama is after Sept 11. If there havent been any major terrorist attacks, then Obama is obviously better than Bush already.

Neal- you espouse free market economies and letting the markets rule. A "Sam Walton" or a "Walt Disney" could have taken over Iraq by now. Whats with the extreme military rhetoric? Start talking to your enemies and send some McDonald CEOs there. Problem solved. Don't be so scared of everything.

restoring the American Ideal??? You are kidding right? Obama is not taking us in the direction of the American Ideal, he is destroying it, him, Pelosi, Reid, Frank, etc.

Unbelievable.

Now the world loves us? That must be why they did not go along with the Obama plans for more spending and more troops. It sure does look like they are on our side.

Someone didn't read the fine print on SecDef Gates' PROPOSED budget. Only the OPERATIONAL part of the STRATEGIC missile defense is FROZEN. Research & Development continues; spending for TACTICAL missile defense (both R&D & Ops) is INCREASED. To steal from the SecDef's statement: it is important to remember that every defense dollar spent to over-insure against a remote or diminishing risk – or, in effect, to “run up the score” in a capability where the United States is already dominant – is a dollar not available to take care of our people, reset the force, win the wars we are in, and improve capabilities in areas where we are underinvested and potentially vulnerable.

Dick Cheney doesn't give a damn about public opinion and never smiles. You gotta love the guy.

Now there is the pucker power quote of the day...Joe Biden guaranteeing that we are safer and more secure today than anytime during the Bush administration.

If, heaven forbid, there would have been another 9-11 incident during the waning years of the Bush administration, most of the world would have provided absolutely no sympathy for us, nor would they have been likely to support for whatever responsive action the U.S would have taken.

It's sort of like when some friendless jerk gets divorced, he doesn't get much sympathy or support; he is on his own.

If, heaven forbid, there were another 9-11 type of event now, our tremendously improved standing in the world would result in much of the world rallying to our side and supporting our response.

So, we are safer on two fronts:
1. Fewer people in this world hate us now that President Obama is restoring the American ideal. Among those who still hate us, some of the passion behind that hatred has diminished. If you have fewer enemies, and those who remain are less passionate, you have less risk of attack.
2. Those who would do us harm realize that when America cultivates friends in the world, it'll have help and the moral authority to exact revenge to their dastardly deeds. Therefore, they'll reconsider their plot.

OK, go ahead with the responses suggesting that the best strategy is instead for the U.S. to be the playground bully that everybody hates . . . but who in adulthood becomes an uneducated, friendless, jobless loser.

You think the UN is totally worthless and should be ignored when they disagree with Bush, but suddenly UN resolutions need to be taken seriously when North Korea violates them. You can't have it both ways. The UN is either a legitimate source of international law, or it isn't.

Obama and Joe Biden should form a stand up comedy team. After all people love comedy. Whoops forgot Obama already tried this out in Europe.