Three Years Terror Free and Counting

[bobman0330]

I would be interested to hear what some of the posters on this forum think of the Bush administration's perfect record in preventing post-9/11 terror attacks on US soil.

I know most of the conservative posters here will attribute this (rightly, I believe [get it? harharhar]) to President Bush's leadership. What do anti-Bush folks believe? Has he done a good job here? Just gotten lucky?

[FishHooks]

I'm pro Bush, but like you hear all the time, its not if we will have a terrorist attack, its when. I do think we will have another terrorist attack, I have no idea when of course.

[coffeecrazy1]

I think that this raises a good question: is the fact that there have been no attacks directly correlated with the actions of the Bush administration?

I wish that there were credible stats(and maybe there are...someone can help me on this) involving the likelihood of a terrorist attack on the US in pre-9/11 conditions vs. post-9/11 conditions.

My personal feeling is that there has been improvement in the safety of our nation, but that we have paid a terrible price for that safety, and that, in doing so, we have allowed the terrorists to win, anyway.

I don't think that killing our citizens defeats us. I think that the terrorists have managed to change our way of life and thinking so much(for instance, that bastard with plastique in his shoes...try going through an airport with your shoes on now) is their greatest victory.

So, then, the question becomes...have we really won anything? Has the Bush administration really been successful at all?

[jayh1285]

Last time I checked, bin Laden is still at large, Islamic extremism and anti-American sentiment is growing around the world, and North Korea and Iran are in the process of developing nukes. I'm not sure this is the best time to be bragging about Bush's anti-terror accolades.

[ptmusic]

I don't think it's fair to give Bush (full) credit for the lack of a terrorist attack since 9/11, just as I don't think it would be fair to give him (full) blame if there had been an attack. Ultimately, the biggest reason for a lack of a terrorist attack is due to the strategic decisions of the terrorists, not Bush. For example, they may be choosing to wait to increase the advantage of surprise. They also may be waiting to build up their resources and capabilities before they strike again.

A separate, but related, point about this discussion: the biggest terrorist attack on our soil EVER happened on Bush's watch! Should we give Bush all the blame for that? Of course not. But it's disingenuous to suggest that Bush's record is perfect.

-ptmusic

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
What do anti-Bush folks believe? Has he done a good job here? Just gotten lucky?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think President Bush deserves credit for the fact that we have not been attacked on US soil since 9/11. The facts speak for themselves.

But I think it's a two-way street. Should the US be attacked again, I hope conservatives are willing to blame the President as quickly as the left will (if President Bush is still in office - or even out of office for 8 months, as many right-wingers are more than happy to lame blame at the feet of President Clinton despite the fact he was out of office for 8 months). I have a feeling that won't be the case, though.

I'm of the opinion that another terrorist attack will just elicit something along the lines of "Now we need President Bush's leadership more than ever" from Republicans.

But I'll definitely give him credit. No terror is praiseworthy, to be sure.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
Last time I checked, bin Laden is still at large, Islamic extremism and anti-American sentiment is growing around the world, and North Korea and Iran are in the process of developing nukes. I'm not sure this is the best time to be bragging about Bush's anti-terror accolades.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does it lower your self-esteem to realize that so far you are the only person unable to post a cogent, constructive, and on-point response to this thread?

[Arnfinn Madsen]

I regard myself a anti-Bush'er (surprised? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]).

I think that when US soldiers are on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq, most middle eastern wannabe-terrorists find it easier to go there and try to kill a few Americans there. Obviously some intelligence work is functioning too, since I guess there have been attempts.

[jayh1285]

bobman,

My response was directed towards your ridiculous notion that Bush's anti-terror record can be judged based solely on short-term results. And as a matter of fact, I do think Bush has "gotten lucky" b/c there were things he could have done and there still are things he can do to help prevent terrorism, if not in the short run but in the long run.

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
bobman,

My response was directed towards your ridiculous notion that Bush's anti-terror record can be judged based solely on short-term results. And as a matter of fact, I do think Bush has "gotten lucky" b/c there were things he could have done and there still are things he can do to help prevent terrorism, if not in the short run but in the long run.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would like to see a response to this. The right wingers on this forum seem to have little understanding of the long term ramifications of certain policies and actions of our government because they get so caught up in short term victories that they don't always see the big picture. It's really not about "how are you doing now compared to four years ago" as Ronald Reagan suggested. It is whether or not the policies and actions you put into place right now will help lead the country into a better place in the coming years.