Bush Shields U.S., Cheney Says

[rodeodance]

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-cheney29aug29,1,3419706.story


Bush Shields U.S., Cheney Says
The vice president says `sound policy decisions' by the president, and a vigilant government, have deterred terrorist strikes since 9/11.

By Julian E. Barnes
Times Staff Writer

August 29, 2006

RENO — Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday that "sound policy decisions" by the Bush administration were the reason the United States had not been attacked by terrorists since Sept. 11, 2001.

Speaking at a Veterans of Foreign Wars convention here as the fifth anniversary of the attacks approached, Cheney said that terrorists had mounted successful attacks on targets overseas, including Madrid; London; and Jakarta, Indonesia — but not in the United States.

"No one can guarantee that we won't be struck again. But to have come this far without another attack is no accident," Cheney said, crediting "sound" decisions by President Bush and vigilance by U.S. agencies and the military.

Cheney's claim of credit for the absence of attacks, a frequent theme in his recent speeches, contrasts sharply with criticism by Democrats and others who charge the administration has left the U.S. more vulnerable to terrorism by focusing on the war in Iraq...........

[Kutjara]

1. Let me put it this way:

If the soundness of Shrub's policies is the reason behind America's 'safety' since 9/11, Al Qaeda has to be the most preternaturally inept terrorist organization in history. Their leadership must be entirely composed of long-term coma patients and the freshly dead. Those are the only two social demographics that could conceivably be stupider than BushCo.

[aquart]

2. Of course it's no accident.

The terrorists are not idiots. After a spectacular event like 9/11, how could they top it? Fly ten planes into ten buildings? Sure, but hardly interesting or original. More like a big spite on the travel and tourism industry.

It's HARD to top 9/11. It takes thought, planning, money, effort. It ain't easy. Sometimes it's just embarrassing, like that shoe bomb.

Terrorists run the risk of becoming "no big deal." If their next hits are smaller than 9/11, people will eventually become like the Israelis: testy but phlegmatic. We'll just shrug and keep going. Law of diminishing returns.

However, the nature of terrorism, which is psychological, does not require another strike, which is so damned hard to pull off. It merely requires the threat. And the nature of the BushCo administration in publicizing and escalating the hint of a threat makes any terrorist's work that much easier. A piece of cake, in fact.

Thanks to Bush, all any terrorist wannabe has to do is whisper, "Boo!"

[clydefrand]

3. Good artical on CBS

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/29/opinion/main1945538.shtml

[Dover]

4. Not quite. Bush shields Cheney and his cronies to deflect public anger

directed at them.

[intaglio]

5. Of course * could really shield the US

If you strapped him to the nose of a missile used to shoot down an ICBM :evilgrin:

[mediaman007]

6. Bush* didn't stop any attacks, Cheney didn't, nor did Rumsfeld.

I would guess the same CIA, FBI and military would be available for the next 2 years, whether Congress was run by Republicans or Democrats.

How presumptuous to think that our national security hinges on Bush*, Cheney and Rumsfeld!






edit: spelling