The premise of the original statement seems to measuring the President's term vs. successful terrorist attacks. So the term of the current President starts in 2001. Excluding the major event of 9/11 makes no sense then when discussing successful terrorist attacks.
Exactly. That's like describing insurgents as Sunni and Shiite, which is useful information. Categorizing them as all "Muslim" is useless.
It is because of intelligence sharing that I believe we have increased the chance of stopping a major attack. My confidence falls short, however, because we don't address other issues in a meaningful way (like border security). I agree we are still in considerable danger. I donât dispute Clinton was concerned with OBL, but why were the intelligence walls not removed under his watch? http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0902/092302b1.htm Are stories on the net about Clinton having opportunities to take OBL out true or false? What did the commission determine about the following story? I would have thought an aggressive policy on OBL would have involved the decision making ability to execute on a moments notice when such an opportunity arises. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/ What were in the documents Berger pilfered, and were they related to OBL? http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/20/berger.probe/ http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/04/01/berger.plea/index.html I believe intelligence to be one of the biggest keys to succeeding against major attacks, but other issues have to be factored in. I donât believe those other issues have been dealt with in a satisfactory way to make us reasonably safe...not under this or the previous admin. I believe the previous admin failed on the intelligence front by not lowering the walls, and not seizing opportunity. How does the saying go? They (terrorists) only have to get it right once.
You understand that it was renewed by the Bush administration in 2001, right? Ashcroft's Larry Thompson renewed it. So if it was a problem, and the 9/11 commission said that it wasn't, why was it renewed in 2001? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9088-2004Apr13.html http://mediamatters.org/items/200405200005 Still feel safer? One problem with your theory: when Clinton was president they didn't have the missiles on the predator drones yet as it was still in testing. When Bush was president, they had missiles on the predator drones. That's why the article says "we weren't prepared." They didn't have airplanes ready to go into Afghanistan. Then Bush got into power and yanked most of the predator drones that were tracking Bin Laden right out of the country to put them into Iraq. Guess he had a plan to do something there. They were related to the Millenium attack plots, and he took copies (ie. he printed the documents and took them home.) This got exaggerated to the point of absurdity where he was stuffing documents into his underwear and pants and socks. Well that's certainly true. It's odd that you feel that the previous administration failed, when under it the CIA opened an entire unit specifically assigned to capture Bin Laden. Under the Bush administration that unit was closed. C.I.A. Closes Unit Focused on Capture of bin Laden Published: July 4, 2006 "WASHINGTON, July 3 â The Central Intelligence Agency has closed a unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants, intelligence officials confirmed Monday. "The unit, known as Alec Station, was disbanded late last year and its analysts reassigned within the C.I.A. Counterterrorist Center, the officials said.
This is true but no reflection on Bush. To credit Bush, you have to say that if Kerry or Gore had won, 9/11 would have i) happened in the first place; ii) not been responded to as competently. Given that neither of those men would have invaded Iraq, and would therefore have had billions more to spend on security, it's extremely unlikely they would have had a counter-terrorist apparatus any less secure than the one implemented by Bush. No, Bush doesn't deserve any special credit for this. The credit is due mostly to people who work in the security services, not the President.
I don't recall them threatening the US in any credible way before 2003. Was N Korea about to invade the South? Libya about to take over North Africa? Iran about to nuke Israel? No. Making anti-US comments in the Arab media does not count as "formidable". Meanwhile half the civilised world has been alienated and no longer views the USA as a beneficial force in world politics.
Fair enough. I will not defend Bush on this one. It took 9/11 to get the action. Like I said in an earlier post, there is no shortage of blame. Only a little. I agree we are still in considerable danger, and that will never change until all the relevant issues are addressed. We could have used cruise missiles or a strike force, as he was in our sights. If we were searching, these should have been in place. I am not a supporter of the Iraq decision. We should have finished our work in Afghanistan. Just my opinion. It was actually pretty funny, but why did he do it? I feel that way because they had him in their sights, and for whatever reason, they were not able to take him out. Did they even try? As far as Bush, I feel he snapped to after 9/11, but after Afghanistan some things took a turn that I didn't understand. Like implementing the patriot act while at the same time leaving the borders open. I feel safer, but only a little.
You're clueless if you think neither Gore nor Kerry would have invaded Iraq. I suggest you read their comments in support of Saddam removal as thouroughly as I have.
Wow. Experiment complete. I didn't start this thread to brag on bush. I started it for one reason only: to see how many people would try to deny a blatant and positive fact just because it carries positive connotations towards the Bush administration. I now am of the opinion that liberals hold their biases just as strongly and as blindly as conservatives. Thanks guys
More stupidity. If NK didn't have designs on the South then why were they developing nukes? Here's the bottom line. Bush campaigned in 2000 against 4 rogue States. Libya, Iran, Iraq and North Korea. All four have given up their WMD ambitions. We can argue whether they "deserved" it or not: that's another debate. As far as "half the civilized world" who gives a fuck. Gee do you think Americans care if Chavez is pissed? Or Morales? Or some Islamic appeasing socialist shit hole country in Europe? Get real bro. They hate us for our consumption. The French have treated our tourists like shit since...actually they treated or G.I's like crud even back in WWll. They hate the fact that in exchange for 3 minutes in wages we can eat a taco off a truck. Dive into backyard swimming pools. Drive cars made in THEIR countries that they themselves can't afford. Bush, war , canard. If France, Germany, the Netherlands ect weren't crawling with towel heads you'd never hear a peep about Iraq........