No terrorist attacks on American soil since Sept 2001

[Tex]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

On second reading, this thread was one big troll. I'm disappointed I fell for it.

I hope you're not talking about me, since I was asking sincerely. I never really gave my opinion. Maybe it's a little late now, but here goes anyway.

I think Bush deserves a lot (not all) of credit for keeping the country safe since 9/11. I believe terrorists were emboldened by their success that day and have tried harder to repeat it since.

I am not interested in assigning blame to either Bush or Clinton for 9/11, though there was delinquency on both their parts. I think the national mindset, including our leaders, was different pre-9/11 and what's most important is how we react to the still existent threat moving forward. The idea that giving credit to Bush means we must also blame Bush is childish and silly.

If Obama goes through a 4-year presidency (or 8) with a similar record, I will give him credit too.

[Colly Wolly]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

So, how many guns do you own?

Zero.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I hope you're not talking about me, since I was asking sincerely. I never really gave my opinion. Maybe it's a little late now, but here goes anyway.

I think Bush deserves a lot (not all) of credit for keeping the country safe since 9/11. I believe terrorists were emboldened by their success that day and have tried harder to repeat it since.

I am not interested in assigning blame to either Bush or Clinton for 9/11, though there was delinquency on both their parts. I think the national mindset, including our leaders, was different pre-9/11 and what's most important is how we react to the still existent threat moving forward. The idea that giving credit to Bush means we must also blame Bush is childish and silly.

If Obama goes through a 4-year presidency (or 8) with a similar record, I will give him credit too.

It only took you 12 pages in a thread you started for you to express an opinion on the subject? Nah, I wouldn't say that's too late. That's earlier than usual for you.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Adam

To be consistent, anyone who credits Bush II for a lack of terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11 would have to blame him for 9/11 while giving Carter, Reagan and Clinton credit for a lack of terrorist attacks in America during their tenure (the first attack on the WTC happened 33 days after Clinton took office so this reasoning would have to fairly put that attack on Bush I).

Of course I don't think Bush gets credit. I think they just haven't decided to hit us and have wanted to spread the pain to Europe (Spain and London transit attacks). If they had wanted to hit us, they could have.

Al Qaeda's next operation in the US has the codename "Chinese Democracy."

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Adam

Of course I don't think Bush gets credit. I think they just haven't decided to hit us and have wanted to spread the pain to Europe (Spain and London transit attacks). If they had wanted to hit us, they could have.

You think that AL Qaeda was capable of attacking the USA is some significant way but, instead, decided to teach London a lesson by having a bunch of school boys with backpacks attack a few buses and tube stations? Seriously, you really think that was all part of the plan of AL Qaeda and that as an an organization it could have attacked elsewhere but it CHOSE the London attack? If anything, the ineptitude of thr London attack suggests to me that AL Qaeda is in a bad way (or at least it was at that time).

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Adam

To be consistent, anyone who credits Bush II for a lack of terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11 would have to blame him for 9/11 while giving Carter, Reagan and Clinton credit for a lack of terrorist attacks in America during their tenure (the first attack on the WTC happened 33 days after Clinton took office so this reasoning would have to fairly put that attack on Bush I).

Of course I don't think Bush gets credit. I think they just haven't decided to hit us and have wanted to spread the pain to Europe (Spain and London transit attacks). If they had wanted to hit us, they could have.

You may be trying to be facetious, but if not, you're full of shit here.

Clinton was in office when the WTC was bombed the first time. It happened on his watch. And if you want to play the "it wasn't his fault because he was only in office for a short bit of time" game, then Clinton is to blame for 9/11, as there has been reports that Sudan offered Clinton Bin Laden and Bill decided there wasn't a reason to have him.

There have been no terrorist attacks in the US since Sept. 11, 2001. GW Bush has been in the White House during this period. He gets credit.