No terrorist attacks on American soil since Sept 2001

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

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.

WRONG. I believe that the reforms and improvements to our intelligence and enforcement agencies under Bush will serve us better in the short and long term. If Obama agrees (however unlikely that might be) that those were appropriate measures, then I'll be more than happy to credit him for his judgment.

If Clinton had done the same thing 3 years earlier, I would be more than willing to admit he did something right.

It's not a partisanhip issue, it's an issue of what is the right thing to do. You're coming off more partisan than anyone right now, DDD.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

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.

I think we decisively won that war. We dropped a bomb on one enemy and the other army surrended.

No such luck with Iraq. We couldn't even find Osama in Tora Bora. he still taunts us in videos.

So again, not the same comparison. There is no objective measure of success so far in this war on terror. There was definitely an objective meausure of success in WW2.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by BYU71

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.

I agree with you. And I have already stated that doing so is ridiculous partisanship wrangling. In no way do I blame Bush for 9/11.

Regardless of party affiliation, I operate under the assumption that our Presidents do NOT want foreign attacks on domestic soil and will do whatever they can to prevent them. hence, our fairly impressive record of safety since our inception as a nation.

[Flystripper]

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.

pretty much

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

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.

I know that over the years we have heard many times about attacks that have been thwarted. We have also heard from the left that our presence in the Middle East has made the likelihood of attack dramatically higher, and they are right about this. I don't get the sense that Homeland Security the FBI and the CIA have been sitting around for the last seven years saying, geeze, thanks for the bigger budget but there just isn't really that much for us to do.

The argument you are making is like saying, you know I'm not really aware of anyone having tried to break into my house so I really got screwed when they convinced me to buy locks for the doors.

As for Obama, if he continues polices that are calculated to keep us safe, then he is entitled for credit when we remain safe. I don't think that you can credit a president too much or blame him much for anything at the end of his first month, but at the end of the first 6 months is a different story. I guess I'm just not sure how you are developing the notion that there just hasn't really been any true threat we have been combating domestically. I know that my friends in federal law enforcement tell me otherwise.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

WRONG. I believe that the reforms and improvements to our intelligence and enforcement agencies under Bush will serve us better in the short and long term. If Obama agrees (however unlikely that might be) that those were appropriate measures, then I'll be more than happy to credit him for his judgment.

If Clinton had done the same thing 3 years earlier, I would be more than willing to admit he did something right.

It's not a partisanhip issue, it's an issue of what is the right thing to do. You're coming off more partisan than anyone right now, DDD.

Better as measured how? The only thing you can point to is the lack of terrorist attacks on our soil.

I am happy there have been no terrorist attacks on our soil since 9/11, but I don't see why the lack of attacks is because of Bush.

There is nothing partisan about that. Next year at this time, I wont attribute the lack of attacks to any special thing Obama has done. Keeping our country free from attacks is a great accomplishment, but since pretty much all of our US presidents have done it, I dont see anything extraordinary about Bush's actions.

I forget, though, that this is a group of McCain lovers who are impressed with his security creditials...he sits on committees that decide pensions, for example. So no wonder everyone is stoked that Bush formed more committees. Committees keep up safe!

[MikeWaters]

The Bush admin decided that the best way to put out this fire was to blow it out. Unfortunately they had never heard of bellows.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

I forget, though, that this is a group of McCain lovers who are impressed with his security creditials...he sits on committees that decide pensions, for example. So no wonder everyone is stoked that Bush formed more committees. Committees keep up safe!

Are you at high altitude today or something? Take a deep breath.

[BYU71]

I may be old school. I have always thought growing up and have never changed my mind that the best way to keep someone from bothering you is to have them scared as hades of you and what you might do.

Now, I will agree if you have folks who don't worry about dieing, that attitude might be useless. Of course I don't know how you deal with people who don't worry about dieing.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

I think we decisively won that war. We dropped a bomb on one enemy and the other army surrended.

No such luck with Iraq. We couldn't even find Osama in Tora Bora. he still taunts us in videos.

So again, not the same comparison. There is no objective measure of success so far in this war on terror. There was definitely an objective meausure of success in WW2.

But how do we know that we need to drop that bomb? With the pacific fleet disabled, Japan was free to invade indonesia and get all the oil it needed. They probably would have left us alone at that point. Do we really think that Hitler was going to cross the Atlantic and invade us? I'm just no convinced that fighting WWII was really necessary to keep us free from further attack. The mainland was certainly never under any threat.

I disagree that there is no objective measure. Totally disagree. One measure is preventing further attack. Check. Another is destroying the Taliban, capturing or killing Bin Laden, and keeping terrorist training camps from operating in the Middle East. Failure. Another would be installing operational western friendly governments in both of the countries we invaded. So far, failure. I'm certainly willing to criticize, but I think it is clear that some credit is also deserved.