Does Bush get credit for no terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11?

[kcwayne]

Take off the partisan blinders for a second and give this question some serious thought. Is the fact that we haven't been attacked due to action by the administration or is it pure dumb luck?

There have been no trials or convictions. All the cases I am aware of have been thrown out of court with the exception of the shoe bomber and Moussoui. There have been no interdictions of a pending plot by confirmed Al Queda (or Iraqi nationals for that matter).

So what gives? Is the administration actually doing something to stop attacks, but simply executing anyone they capture and keeping it quiet? I doubt that because these clowns have demonstrated no competency in any other area, and it would be very tough to keep something like complete violation of the Constitution hidden.

Why wouldn't Al Queda attack us? We have given them every reason to, and it simply cannot be that hard to get into the country and do nasty things.

I am really befuddled by this, and think it will be important to the Kerry administration to figure this out going forward.

[meg]

1. 9/11 happened on his watch

He should get credit for that at least!

[Elwood P Dowd]

3. He sat on his ass for 8 months and did nothing.

Ignored the August 6 warnings and took a month of vacation.

[ladybugg33]

31. I give the credit to the terrorists. They haven't decided on one yet.

But they sure as hell are killing a lot of people all over the world. The bombings in Egypt prove that you really can't stop this stuff if people decide to use car bombs and other means to pay you back for your attacks and actions against them. They are very patient and the blow back will come when they want it, not when we predict it. The best way to thwart your enemies is to have none enemies and to stop doing things to make enemies of even former allies.

[Elwood P Dowd]

2. Does Clinton get credit for no attacks from 1993 to 2001?

Something like 9-11 takes years of planning and a little help from you friends in high places.

[LisaLynne]

4. My mom said the same thing.

How can these asshats get away with this balony??

[serryjw]

6. Then Clinton certainly gets credit for

saving LAX in 2000 millennium

[kcwayne]

18. The World Trade Center bombing occured on Clinton's watch

as did the Oklahoma City bombing. But of course, the perpetrators of those crimes have been caught, tried, and in one case executed.

[sysoprock]

5. Yes, I give him credit.

Yes to his credit, we have had no attacks since.

If thats because of his policies or just because there hasn't been any attempts remains to be seen.

I think that Bush made the right decision in going after Afghanistan and his disruption of Al-Queda probably halted whatever attacks they had in the making.

Also, with the creation of Homeland Security, despite its critics, I think has done it's job in terms of stopping attacks.

That being said, in terms of foreign policy everything he has done AFTER
Afghanistan has been a royal fuck up. Iraq was a disaster, and more and more he seems to be using Homeland Security and his "terror alerts" for polticial gain.

I've said it many times before, if Bush hadn't of gone into Iraq he would be coasting into a second term.

[ima_sinnic]

10. If Bush hadn't gone into Iraq he'd be coasting out on his ass

...if you will remember, right up until 9/11 he was sinking abysmally. The economy was already diving or at least stagnating. His approval ratings were steadily eroding. He was proving himself to be a very lackluster president at best. His BS bullhorn bleating atop the graves of his 2,000 sacrificial lambs gave him a mighty lift in the polls by the very stupid citizenry but that has now dwindled down to less than it was before 9/11.

my opinion: I wear garlic around my neck to ward off werewolves. It must be working because I have had no problem with werewolves. Or is that too "nuanced" for you?

[sysoprock]

13. still...

His weak point in this election is Iraq. If he hadn't of fucked that up so bad he wouldn't have half the criticism hes getting now.

I'm pretty confident he could have ridden Afghanistan and "the war on terror" into a second term if he would have played his cards right.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending him. I think hes a fuck.

I'm just trying to look at it realistically.

[Booster]

12. Nah, no attacks since 9/11 doesn't have anything to do

with Bush's policies - you can drive a truckload of terrorists across the Mexican border without any problem. We've just been lucky that we haven't been attacked. I think the terrorists are waiting to see how the election goes because it's Bush/Cheney who are trying to secure the Middle East for political and monetary gains and if they get re-selected, better duck cause something ugly is going to happen.

[kcwayne]

19. But Homeland Security is a joke

Can you name one tangible thing Homeland Security has done that indicates its actually working? Ashcroft is about 0 for 5000 in the arrests they have made, the ports and borders are wide open, airline security has proven to be easily compromised on multiple tests, the nuke plants don't even have no fly zones. So other than the Patriot act give the government to determine whether you are reading the Bible of Mein Kampf, I can't point to anything tangible that this huge waste of money does.

[ProfessorGAC]

29. Another Case Of Conclusions Drawn Sans Data

You are correct here, not the poster to whom you replied.

There is absolutely zero evidence that the HSD has done a single thing to make this country safer. There's really nothing new there! The same agencies that mucked up the situation that led to 9/11 are still there and under one umbrella held by a political syncophant.

Besides, 9/11 was intended to be al Qaeda's grand play on the world stage. The magnitude and symbolism of the attack was intended to show the world their reach, their courage, and to engender worldwide sympathy for the cause and stimulate Muslim revolution. The latter part of the intent failed miserably.

The dispersion of al Qaeda to the 4 winds was more the result of their own miscalculation then of anything we did in Afghanistan and anything HSD has done.
The Professor

[Sterling]

21. Too funny.

"Also, with the creation of Homeland Security, despite its critics, I think has done it's job in terms of stopping attacks"

I am laughing too hard to respond, nice try though. Happy orange alert to you!!

Maybe there have been no more attacks because Cheney has not signed off on them yet?

[Solomon]

28. Sterling. You and I think alike. I have to laugh sometimes at what

people say.

Look. Al Qaeda is a made up fiction. I'm not saying they don't exist NOW, but what I mean is, they really weren't on the map as the big bad ugly until Bush put them there.

When are people going to wake up to the sad fact that 9-11 was an inside job? Christ, the clues are all in our faces. Maybe that's why so many can't see it.

Attacks on american soil won't help Bush now. Ergo, there are none.

I keep saying this over and over. How hard would it be for them to blow up a restaurant over here? How much havoc would it cause to just blow up one restaurant? It would put this country in shatters.

We have been fed the bullshit that says they always wait at least ten years to do something big. That's ridiculous. Sterling has it right.
They haven't hit us because Cheney hasn't ordered it.

[DemonFighterLives]

33. I agree with the 2 of you

That attack could not have happened without the right people in the right places including a military stand down. As long as the sheep are behaving and following the shepard, they have no need for another attack. Though, I caution the poster mentioning the attack on a restaurant. Don't give BFEE any ideas. Oh wait, I'm sure they are considering it.

[Junkdrawer]

7. The question is "Who attacked us on 9/11"...

I don't think that is at all clear.

[tinanator]

35. who profited, and who attempts to?

solid clues there.
Was it Afghani stock manipulators?
Iraqi defense contractors?
French politicians?

[vinnievin777]

8. He gets credit for

turning a record surplus into a record deficit
for creating more terrorists by Invading Iraq
for the only president in 75 yrs not to create a single job
for dividing a nation
for turning the most respected country into a hated nation
for over 1000 plus American deaths
for over 20,000 plus civilian Iraqi deaths
for 9/11 happening on his watch
for destroying our environment
for raising the amount uninsured children to 17.6 percent
for creating the largest gap between the richest and the poorest
for taking overtime away from 6 million Americans



That's off the top of my head,

Vinnie
http://www.vinnievin.com

[DemonFighterLives]

34. Thanks, I may need to borrow your list.

nt

[Poiuyt]

9. I say more luck than anything else

It's true that an attack like 9/11 would take a lot of planning and be difficult to carry out, but what about suicide attacks? Anyone can strap some dynamite to themselves and walk through Time Square. That would be very difficult to prevent.

Also keep in mind that the Bush threat of war isn't going to stop someone who is using suicide as an attack method. They believe that dying for their cause is the way to heaven.

[WMliberal]

11. maybe

after the next attack, we'll prolly find out if the terrosists were just biding their time, or ( EXTREMELY FUCKING UNLIKELY!!! ) Bush's countermeasures have thwarted terrorist efforts.

[lostnfound]

14. Iraqi Scientist discussed binLaden tape with a possible answer (DN! today)

Imad Khadduri was a nuke scientist in Iraq; wrote 'Iraq's Nuclear Mirage'. http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/07/1335230

Six months ago, when there was the Spain Madrid train bombing and ten days later the Al Qaeda issued a statement on that, that was six months ago. They said, we will ask all operations to be halted in Spain, giving the Spanish people the chance to vote and perhaps withdraw, and they did. Now, the second part of that statement, declaration, was not published, was not widespread in the west. I did translate it and send it to the Toronto Star. It wasn't published there. What did it say? In it Osama Bin Laden was hoping, was saying to Bush: "I really wish that you would win next November election, because you are the only one who can convince the Muslims of the -- of the -- with your -- with your intransigence and violent approach, it will convince the Muslims that American military postures and foreign policy is against their interests. Therefore I have asked all operations to be suspended from the United States until the election. And after that, every event will have its own discourse." Now, he said–this is Osama Bin Laden saying–that if Kerry comes into -- into power, he will again ameliorate the whole situation. He will sugar-coat it to the Muslims, thinking that he's giving them democracy, or whatever. So that's why he was wishing -- Osama was wishing Bush, that he should be winning; and that's why he asked all of his operations to stop in the United States until the November elections. Now, when two months ago there was this big fiasco about the financial district among the attack by terrorists, and the red or orange alert came, again I sent it to the Toronto Star, a day earlier on Sunday. And I told Bill Schiller, he's the political editor of the Star, I said, "Look this is a hoax. Bin Laden doesn't intend to strike because he said so a few months ago. He has a policy on this." What I'm saying now is apparently -- apparently, with all these lies coming to bear, coming to light, and what is being done about them, really? Is the American public still -- who is really in a very litmus test of its own democracy. American democracy is really at risk these days. And still, American public still think, and the -- and this misconception that they have been -- they have been painted over with the mass media, they still believe in these lies. What hope is there but for this to continue and -- until it's -- until its termination? That Bush should stay, him and Cheney -- He owns the world. We simply live in it, but he owns it, he and Bush, apparently. That's the only way for it, I believe, to shorten the occupation of Iraq is for their policy to simply flop. But if Cheney comes and -- I mean if -- if Kerry comes and starts spending more time and trying to build coalitions, in the meantime much more Iraqi blood will be shed in that course. Therefore, I say, as I said again, and I am reiterating, that the best hope for the rest of the world is that Bush does win and sinks this whole empire in its own folly.

[Sterling]

22. I think there havse been no attack for one of two reasons.

Bush doesn't need one now.

and


Any Muslim that might be up to it probably realizes after the next one Muslims will be drug into the street and slaughtered all over the US. Another 9-11 level attack and that is what you will see. I doubt many will try to stop it.

The next attack will happen after the election most likely if Kerry wins.

[ThatPoetGuy]

15. Yes.

bin Laden wanted American troops out of Saudi Arabia.

Bush pulled them out and put them in Iraq.

Bush kept us safe. By giving the terrorists exactly what they wanted.

[guitar man]

16. sure he does

He has our troops set up in a shooting gallery in Iraq with terrorists streaming across the border to hit them there. Why should they bother with coming all the way to the US to attack us when they can do it so close to home. For the sake of xmas we have troops in a slaughter zone with no defined enemy anymore(Saddam's in jail) and a war that should be over with no way to win. Bush is taking full advantage of this.

I explained this to my repuke sister-in-law when she mentioned no terrorist attacks since 9-11. After I got her to understand what is going on, UIa asked her if she was ok with it and she said "yes, as long as we don't get here again, I'm scared of what might happen if they come back here." I said, "fine, just remember, you support those brave kids are dying over there in that meat grinder because you are a COWARD. By the way, aren't both of your kids about draft age?"

<cue crickets>

[ThePhilosopher04]

17. That would be like taking credit for taking care of your kids...

which of course you're SUPPOSED TO DO!!!

Secondly, Bill Clinton went eight years without getting hit

[kcwayne]

20. Wrong

The World Trade Center was bombed, and the Oklahoma City bombing.
But Clinton's administration actually did something about it, which is why they were able to stop the Millenium plot.

[Disturbed]

23. Credit goes to al Q.

They don't need to attack America. They could have done so within the past three years. Their goal is not to destroy America or Saudi Arabia. They want the US out of the ME. I think that they will succeed in their goal.

[Vickers]

24. Every time that doofus says "9/11 changed everything" they put off

any further terrorist attacks, since they are still getting mileage out of the 9/11 attacks.

In other words: the intended effects of the attacks have surpassed their wildest dreams, fanned by the idiocy of BushCo, so they have no REASON to do anything further at this time.

This is the recruiting phase of things.

[alphafemale]

25. 9/11 was a massive failure on all counts. Going 3 years without failing..

so spectacularly again does not make you a success.

And they also try to keep people in a state of fear by saying it's "not a question of if it's a question of when. :wtf:

Are we safer, or aren't we, you sorry bastards? :grr:

This is the most sickening example of *'s handlers trying to promote him through lowered expectations and fear mongering.

[Corgigal]

26. American Airline Flight 587

That just fell apart in flight and landed in the sound off of Rockaway Beach N.Y. NTSB can't even make up some BS reason for it going down. Seems like the media could care less. So NO "terra-ists" strike, maybe, maybe not.



Sounds more suspicious as time goes by.


http://aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_maint.jsp?view=story&id=news/r3001120.xml

[Trajan]

27. The worst attack on the american mainland .....

Occurred on September 11th, 2001 in NYC ....

There was one pResident of the United States of America on that day ....

One and only one ...

It was his responsibility to protect his nation ...

He failed utterly and absolutely .....

[mumon]

30. NO- what about the anthrax attacks????

That was after 9/11- and squat has been done about it.

BTW, I'd say further that terrorism isn't even as serious an issue as food safety- more Americans die from food poisioning every year than perished in the World Trade Center- and you don't see a "War against unsafe food."

[radwriter0555]

32. Then who gets credit for the lack of attacks in the previous 230 years?

well, except for the first WTC attack?

No, bush gets no credit, since he and his whores manufactured this one.