No terrorist attacks on American soil since Sept 2001

[Tex]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Why would I give any President credit for no terrorist attacks on US soil when those are such isolated events to begin with? they almost never happen.

Three questions for you:

1. Did you think in the immediate post-9/11 era (say, 12 months) that we would be hit again? Be honest.

2. Do you think the propensity/probability of being hit by a terrorist attack is higher or lower (or the same) in the '00s than it was in the '90s? In the 80's?

3. Do you think presidents have any influence on the security of the country, or are major terrorist attacks rare "just because" (like major earthquakes in Utah)?

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Tex

Three questions for you:

1. Did you think in the immediate post-9/11 era (say, 12 months) that we would be hit again? Be honest.

2. Do you think the propensity/probability of being hit by a terrorist attack is higher or lower (or the same) in the '00s than it was in the '90s? In the 80's?

3. Do you think presidents have any influence on the security of the country, or are major terrorist attacks rare "just because" (like major earthquakes in Utah)?

1. No. Because we were united as a country and wasted very little time in heading over to Afghanistan. There were complaints domestically of racial profiling and hate crimes against Arabs. The entire citizenry was on alert for anyone with dark skin. It would have been next to impossible for any terrorist to accomplish much in that aftermath.

2. I have no basis for this, but as it has already been mentioned, terrorism has been around a long time. I would guess it would be about the same, if not tougher, given the heightened awareness 9/11 brought to the world. The next time you get on an airplane and you notice 8 Arab men on your flight, you are going to be much more vigilant.

3. I definitely think Presidents (and their cabinets) have an influence on national security. Remember, my point was not to say W did nothing. I think he has done a nice job domestically with national security. I dont blame him for 9/11 at all. But to be consistent, I dont see why he has done anything special, above and beyond what Clinton did. Do you give equal credit to Clinton for keeping us safe?

Finally, if you go down the road that we are in a post 9/11 regime now and domestic security is tougher than ever (therefore giving credit to W), are you fully prepared to be consistent and heap praise on Obama starting next year....for ever month that passes without another terrorist attack?

Attacks on US soil are extremely rare. It doesnt matter who was POTUS during 9/11.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

I am willing to give him credit for no attacks POST 9/11 if we also assign him blame for 9/11.

I'm a little surprised at you DDD, this argument is pretty facile and a total non sequitur. Those are two complete different analyses. It makes perfect sense to ask whether he is responsible in part for either, by weighing what he did both before and after based upon the information available to him and the tools at his disposal.

How about this, I'll agree that Bronco is responsible for BYU's re-emergence if you will agree that he is responsible for the shabby program he inherited. Alternatively lets agree that he is responsible for neither.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I'm a little surprised at you DDD, this argument is pretty facile and a total non sequitur. Those are two complete different analyses. It makes perfect sense to ask whether he is responsible in part for either, by weighing what he did both before and after based upon the information available to him and the tools at his disposal.

How about this, I'll agree that Bronco is responsible for BYU's re-emergence if you will agree that he is responsible for the shabby program he inherited. Alternatively lets agree that he is responsible for neither.

In your scenario, Bronco has done something good despite inheriting something bad. This is not the case with Bush. Bush inherited a safe country. When he took office in 2001, we were not under attack. There was no thought in the public conscious to a domestic terrorist attack. Fast forward to today....he has continued to keep the country free from domestic attacks. He really has simply maintained status quo, as opposed to doing something extraordinary. Bronco, on the other hand, turned lemons into lemonade.

In my post, I was trying to illustrate the illogic in assigning Bush much credit or blame for either the occurence of subsequent non-occurence. Any attempt to do so is simply partisanship wrangling. The lack of attacks on our soil is not the result of W's policies. It is because domestic attacks are an extreme anomaly. Also, attempts to fault Bush for allowing 9/11 to happen (the "ignoring the intellgence" arguments) is equally silly. Who would have known such a plot was going to occur? It certainly is not Bush's fault.

The US receives and assesses terror and security threats every day. This was true before 9/11 and continues to be true today. My confusion goes to why the lack of attacks post 9/11 would be any more creditworthy than the lack of attacks during Clinton's terms? Or during Carter's terms? Or anyone else?

If we want to get literal, then sure....I have no problem giving W "credit" for no terrorist attacks since 9/11. It will get awfully tiring giving credit to everyone in the future for continued non-attacks, though.

Nobody is answering my Obama question. Will Obama be given huge A marks when, at the end of January 2009, we have experienced no terrorist attacks? I doubt it. But I could be wrong. Hopefully, tex will be praising his name this time next year when we have no more terrorist attacks.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

I definitely think Presidents (and their cabinets) have an influence on national security. Remember, my point was not to say W did nothing. I think he has done a nice job domestically with national security. I dont blame him for 9/11 at all. But to be consistent, I dont see why he has done anything special, above and beyond what Clinton did. Do you give equal credit to Clinton for keeping us safe?

I like you DDD, but you are showing some serious ignorance on this issue. How about establishing homeland security, a brand new cabinet level department? Revamping the CIA and FBI and forcing them to cooperate? How about the much vilified Patriot Act? Wire tapping? Invading Afghanistan? You can try to argue, if you want, that those things all went in place and had no effect because the threat didn't really exist, but you can't say that this administration didn't knock it self out trying to prevent further attack. Much easier to say they did too much.

These threats were hardly on Clinton's radar screen and the same is true for Bush as he entered office. They came home on 9/11. I think we were all caught with our pants down that day. But once that occurred, I think there is a very specific and in depth analysis to be done regarding the issue of what did we do to prevent further attacks (again, we have done a massive amount in this area) and whether those steps worked.

People have gotten very frustrated with how the war is going and with Bush personally which is of course reflected in his approval ratings. Conservatives included. But I think that as time passes it will be easier for people to acknowledge that among his accomplishments was preventing further attacks, whatever his failures may be. The idea that he he and Clinton did essentially the same things is completely without factual support.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

In your scenario, Bronco has done something good despite inheriting something bad. This is not the case with Bush. Bush inherited a safe country. When he took office in 2001, we were not under attack. There was no thought in the public conscious to a domestic terrorist attack. Fast forward to today....he has continued to keep the country free from domestic attacks. He really has simply maintained status quo, as opposed to doing something extraordinary. Bronco, on the other hand, turned lemons into lemonade.

In my post, I was trying to illustrate the illogic in assigning Bush much credit or blame for either the occurence of subsequent non-occurence. Any attempt to do so is simply partisanship wrangling. The lack of attacks on our soil is not the result of W's policies. It is because domestic attacks are an extreme anomaly. Also, attempts to fault Bush for allowing 9/11 to happen (the "ignoring the intellgence" arguments) is equally silly. Who would have known such a plot was going to occur? It certainly is not Bush's fault.

The US receives and assesses terror and security threats every day. This was true before 9/11 and continues to be true today. My confusion goes to why the lack of attacks post 9/11 would be any more creditworthy than the lack of attacks during Clinton's terms? Or during Carter's terms? Or anyone else?

If we want to get literal, then sure....I have no problem giving W "credit" for no terrorist attacks since 9/11. It will get awfully tiring giving credit to everyone in the future for continued non-attacks, though.

Nobody is answering my Obama question. Will Obama be given huge A marks when, at the end of January 2009, we have experienced no terrorist attacks? I doubt it. But I could be wrong. Hopefully, tex will be praising his name this time next year when we have no more terrorist attacks.

I'm convinced now that my leg is being pulled.

EDIT: I think I can get on board with what you are saying if you will agree with me that FDR inherited a safe country, not under attack, from Hoover and that neither should be credited above the other for keeping our country safe from attack. The fact is that we get invaded every hundred years or so. We were just due on December 7, 1941.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Nobody is answering my Obama question. Will Obama be given huge A marks when, at the end of January 2009, we have experienced no terrorist attacks? I doubt it. But I could be wrong. Hopefully, tex will be praising his name this time next year when we have no more terrorist attacks.

If Obama doesn't overturn everything Bush did to beef up our security, I'll be more than happy to give him credit for not being stupid enough to "fix" something that wasn't broken to begin with. If he strips off everything Bush did and we are fortunate enough not to see any attacks during his term, I won't give him any credit and will be waiting until the chickens come home to roost once again.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

If Obama doesn't overturn everything Bush did to beef up our security, I'll be more than happy to give him credit for not being stupid enough to "fix" something that wasn't broken to begin with. If he strips off everything Bush did and we are fortunate enough not to see any attacks during his term, I won't give him any credit and will be waiting until the chickens come home to roost once again.

This is exactly what I am talking about. Partisanship wrangling.

Makes no sense to me, but if it makes you feel better about W's presidency, have it.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

In your scenario, Bronco has done something good despite inheriting something bad. This is not the case with Bush. Bush inherited a safe country. When he took office in 2001, we were not under attack. There was no thought in the public conscious to a domestic terrorist attack. Fast forward to today....he has continued to keep the country free from domestic attacks. He really has simply maintained status quo, as opposed to doing something extraordinary. Bronco, on the other hand, turned lemons into lemonade.

In my post, I was trying to illustrate the illogic in assigning Bush much credit or blame for either the occurence of subsequent non-occurence. Any attempt to do so is simply partisanship wrangling. The lack of attacks on our soil is not the result of W's policies. It is because domestic attacks are an extreme anomaly. Also, attempts to fault Bush for allowing 9/11 to happen (the "ignoring the intellgence" arguments) is equally silly. Who would have known such a plot was going to occur? It certainly is not Bush's fault.

The US receives and assesses terror and security threats every day. This was true before 9/11 and continues to be true today. My confusion goes to why the lack of attacks post 9/11 would be any more creditworthy than the lack of attacks during Clinton's terms? Or during Carter's terms? Or anyone else?

If we want to get literal, then sure....I have no problem giving W "credit" for no terrorist attacks since 9/11. It will get awfully tiring giving credit to everyone in the future for continued non-attacks, though.

Nobody is answering my Obama question. Will Obama be given huge A marks when, at the end of January 2009, we have experienced no terrorist attacks? I doubt it. But I could be wrong. Hopefully, tex will be praising his name this time next year when we have no more terrorist attacks.

If we get attacked by terrorists I guarantee you the dems and NBC and other media will blame Bush. It will because we pissed off Arabs by going to Iraq that we got attacked and not Obama's fault.


My opinion will be because they percieve Obama as weak that they will attack. It was probably their judgement of Bush and Clinton on his watch was asleep so they were able to prepare well.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

You can try to argue, if you want, that those things all went in place and had no effect because the threat didn't really exist, but you can't say that this administration didn't knock it self out trying to prevent further attack. Much easier to say they did too much.

I like you too. I like everyone here, especually the super sexy guys like Archaea (I have never seen pics of you, so I cannot say whether you are hot).

I dont disagree that he did those things. And those are great things.

The core of our disagreement seems to be whether those things prevented any real attacks from occurring.

You say there is no factual basis for arguing this point. I can only think of 3 examples of foreign attacks on domestic soil. It is a pretty safe bet that we won't see another one for a long time, regardless of whether Tom Ridge heads up Homeland Security.

I can build a huge fence around my property. The fence is undeniably a measure of security. But just because I built a fence doesnt mean that someone was going to attack me.