No terrorist attacks on American soil since Sept 2001

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by 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.

Again, 71, I agree. And I think that this has generally been our posture in the world..."Mess with best, die like the rest." I am fine with that.

Bush bombing Iraq probably scared people. Capturing Saddam impressed everyone.

Bush wiretapping phones and asking Tom Ridge to head up Homeland Security probably scared nobody.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

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.

I can see your confusion with my inartful nature.

let me clarify...I am not saying W has done nothing to keep our country safe.

I am saying that, when compared to what all our other presidents have done, I dont think he has accomplished anything extraordinary that would merit special praise.

Just because he formed a cabinet position for Homeland Security doesnt mean Al Qaeda was ready to attack us again.

Your example of door locks....I can easily say that just because you put locks on your doors doesn't mean that someone was going to break into your house. I do not deny that having locks on your door provides a measure of comfort, though.

Kind of like all the gun nuts who have a gun next to their bed to protect their family from a non-existant attacker who, statistically speaking, will never come.