Quote:
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.