No terrorist attacks on American soil since Sept 2001

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Iraq isn't "American soil?"

Remember, Bush saved thousands of American lives by bringing the fight to Iraq. He traded thousands of American GI lives for what is probably hundreds of thousands of American civilian lives.

If it were not for the war in Iraq, there would be cities in America smoldering.

[SeattleUte]

I agree with Waters. Al Qaeda hasn't got the means to wage war on American soil. And 9/11 happened because our government affirmatively let us down. All they had to do was be commonsensical and and marginally competent and it wouldn't have happened. If there were no soveireign immunity the families of the slain would have a claim for negligence, maybe recklessness, especially against the CIA. But all that bungling is probably not Bush's fault.

[Tex]

I'm a pretty dense guy, but I'm guessing by the responses I see here that the general answer is "no, he gets no credit."

Too bad we can't run an alternative-world scenario and see if all of you would say the same in reverse, had there been one or many more attacks.

[Cougar Hunter]

How do you define what constitutes a terrorist attack?
Do the DC beltway sniper attacks qualify?
Anthrax attacks?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I look at this bit of news the same way I would look at an airline that started touting how long they've gone without a fatal crash.

If there were people actively trying to sabotage each flight, they might deserve credit for such a record.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Tex

I'm a pretty dense guy, but I'm guessing by the responses I see here that the general answer is "no, he gets no credit."

Too bad we can't run an alternative-world scenario and see if all of you would say the same in reverse, had there been one or many more attacks.

Bush gets full credit for the thousands of GIs dead, and the tens of thousands maimed, crippled, brain-injured servicepersons.

Bush's decision to go to war against Iraq was much more deadly than all of AQ's attacks on civilians in the west put together, it can be argued.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Bush gets full credit for the thousands of GIs dead, and the tens of thousands maimed, crippled, brain-injured servicepersons.

Bush's decision to go to war against Iraq was much more deadly than all of AQ's attacks on civilians in the west put together, it can be argued.

Just yesterday over 30 Iraqi civilians were killed, and many others maimed. Can we talk about them sometime? I guess what gives us pause in laying that directly at Bush's feet is that it's our enemies killing their own people for no good reason at all.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Tex

I'm a pretty dense guy, but I'm guessing by the responses I see here that the general answer is "no, he gets no credit."

Too bad we can't run an alternative-world scenario and see if all of you would say the same in reverse, had there been one or many more attacks.

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

Neither makes sense to me, but if you are intent on going down the road of giving credit, how can you do so without assigning blame?

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.

Hopefully you will give Obama credit for no 9/11 attacks next year.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Bush gets full credit for the thousands of GIs dead, and the tens of thousands maimed, crippled, brain-injured servicepersons.

Bush's decision to go to war against Iraq was much more deadly than all of AQ's attacks on civilians in the west put together, it can be argued.

The unknowable is what the short-term costs saved us over the long-term.

[BYU71]

If Crowton had punted and settled for winning by 3 instead of 9, he would still have his job.

Unless of course Stanford would have scored even if he did punt.