America is losing its fear of terrorist attacks
CNN says America feels safer from terrorist attacks than we have since 2001.
According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Wednesday, 35 percent of Americans believe a terrorist attack somewhere in the United States is likely over the next several weeks.
The figure is the lowest in a CNN poll since the September 11, 2001, al Qaeda attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people.
Now the catch there is that “next several weeks” figure, which sounds a bit vague to me. Do I think we’ll be hit in the next eight to ten weeks? Probably not. In the next 52-156 weeks? I wouldn’t bet a lot of money we won’t. Especially if Hopey McChangerson gets in office.
But timelines aside, I think there’s something to this. Al Qaeda’s getting creamed. They’ve been reviled and repudiated in Iraq, although they’re gaining strength in Europe and Pakistan and because of that second one things are getting kind of hot in Afghanistan.
And meanwhile, while we haven’t done nearly enough and there are a lot of holes all around the country (HINT HINT SOUTHERN BORDER NEEDS FENCE), we’ve wised up a little bit and made ourselves harder to hit. It’s an ongoing process of hardening and rethinking, but together with aggressive disruption of the bigger cells it’s kept most terrorism in America small and isolated.
The magnitude of what these isolated cells and individuals could accomplish might change, of course, if we don’t get a handle on the international nuclear bazaar. And it could change if we do something Iran doesn’t like, and they decide to send us a message through their Hezbollah cheerleaders (which is a problem that we ought to be scared of–if this worldwide threat got the coverage it deserved).
But are we safer than we were on 9/10? Yeah, somewhat, I think we are. And to the extent we are, it’s because we’re keeping the bad guys abroad looking over their shoulders for the Predators instead of giving them the leisure to sit around the map and practice their bomb-building skills. Which, let’s face it, need practice.
So I think what we’ve done–taking the fight to the enemy– is working in principle and helped to keep us safe.*
And that’s why I’m surprised at the political spin being put on this.
National security may be less of an issue in the upcoming election, says CNN, which hurts McCain.
That’s a pretty jarring cognitive dissonance there. People feel safer than ever from terrorism because of the military pressure we’ve put on terrorists and their sponsors and the resolve we’ve (imperfectly, yes) demonstrated against them.
Hey, that policy has worked so surprisingly well that we need to try something else right now! Is that how people really see this issue? CNN predicts Americans will see it that way. I don’t, but maybe most people will.
If so, do they think Al-Qaeda just mellowed out on their own? I suppose given the weird, biased media coverage inflicted upon us, it’s possible to gather that impression. There are no heroes in the news; there is no victory. Our wartime successes are hidden and covered up, and our failures and misjudgments blare from every headline and newscast 24-7.
But whatever the reason, people think we’re safer. I basically agree. The question I hope every patriot asks himself is, WHY?
If a policy works, shouldn’t we support those candidates, and the party, that will continue to advance that policy?
*Oh, I have plenty of criticisms of the Bush administration–but most of them stem from its departure, especially in the second term, of this principle of taking the fight to the enemy.
_________________
{Post by See-Dubya}
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Terrorist attacks, War
Patterico
» The Newest Senators
JustOneMinute
» Susan Rice To The United NationsPower Line
» "Our Friends In Bombay"Belmont Club
» Good enoughNewsBusters.org
» Klein Bashes 'Inanity' of Asking Obama About Process and Old Hillary-Bashing QuotesGateway Pundit
» Change... Obama Continues Boycott of FOX NewsBelmont Club
» Crusader RabbitNewsBusters.org
» MSNBC Anchor Frets: Why Hasn’t Obama’s Election Ended Terrorism?Right Wing Nut House
» THE INCREDIBLY STUPID THOUGHTS OF DEEPAK CHOPRANewsBusters.org
» Name That Party: Democratic Birmingham Mayor Arrested
Bush Spies, Al Qaeda Dies.
I wonder how safe America will feel with the Democrats in full controll of D.C.? *shiver*
This is just the lefts way of trying to make us feel we are secure enough to vote for a crazy liberal who will appease terrorist instead of killing them.
This is the country of the squeaky wheel. When we were attacked here terrorism became a squeaky wheel and the country rushed to fix it (rush is the key word because as we found out we did some things right and others…not so right). Now we have not been attacked in years so that wheel is not squeaking. The economy wheel is squeaking, the home mortgage wheel is squeaking, the infrastructure of our country wheel is squeaking. Whether these wheels are squeaking because of the wheel or the spin (I like that analogy…) we won’t know until after the election when we either find out the wheel wasn’t squeaking after all or tha damn thing falls off.
If there is one thing we ought to have learned it is that Islamic terrorism is patient and it is supported by large numbers of Muslims. In the center of the Islamic terrorist storm is Iran. Make no mistake here, Iran is positioning terrorists in South America with the aid of Chavez, and has almost certainly positioned a sleepers here in the USA. An attack on Iran by Israel will trigger a response in the USA, and that response will be in the nature of increased suicide attacks and chemical, biological and even nuclear events. (We should all thank the news media for failing to keep us alert to the real danger of a very long term war.)
Ah, irony.
It’s a no-win situation.
If we had gotten hit with a terrorist attack since September 11, 2001 — Bush would have been blamed for not doing enough to protect us.
If we’re not hit with a terrorist attack — Bush doesn’t get any credit, but gets blamed for taking away our rights and for torturing known terrorists, and for embarking on an unneccessary war … and national security drops off as a critical issue in the eyes of American citizens.
Based upon the track record, such as Spain’s cave in, I expect Al Qaeda to be calculating how close to the election to hit us. If they think not hitting us will guarantee an Obama victory then nothing will happen. The ideal solution may be to keep telling the world that an Obama victory is always just a few weeks off unless we get attacked. The problem is that we may not be able to string them out indefinitely.
Liberman was probably right, they will probably test the new president who ever it is.
I’m sure they’re (terrorists) hoping for Carter 2.0 for that test.
If they think Obama is going to win then I expect them to attack between the election and the inauguration. In fact the entire world may be jumping during that period. Israel and Iran are both more likely to act then. Chavez may try a land or sea resource grab, the Norks may feel they have to remind the world they exist. It will be an interesting time.
Always on the ready… that’s my plan.
Complacency kills.
Fighting terrorism is as much of an issue for me today as it was on the fateful day of Sept. 11th 2001.
We’ve got to secure the border. ASAP!
I believe the Dems already have been and are in full control of D.C. (and many other major
war zoneser, cities. Having them in control of the entire USA is worrisome.aunursa, we’re coming up on 2500 days since there’s been an attack on our soil. That can never be taken away from Bush’s credit, no matter how much the dems will whine about “rights” being taken away, and “torturing” has happened at gitmo.
How dare anyone whine about rights taken away!
tmkeith–
That’s a pretty good legacy.
I’m not getting all misty-eyed over Dubya just yet, but that’s something for him to be proud of.
And all I had to do was take my shoes off and have my bags screened at the airport. Oh, and lose the irrational fear that the gooberment was “listening in” on my phone calls.
Bush was tested, the P-3 incident in China and, of course, 9-11.
Obama makes it pretty clear he probably wouldn’t respond, which would make him an inviting target.
With the Olympics over, maybe China moves on Taiwan. Maybe they’d wait four years for Obama’s gutting of our military to take effect as their’s continues to build, but if one is reasonably certain a complete pacifist in in charge, maybe you don’t wait.
The Russians didn’t know Carter was incompetent, and didn’t invade Afghanistan (and help launch al Qaeda) until after Carter proved his weakness following the embassy seizure in Tehran. No need to wait on Obama.
#13 tmkeith,
I agree. But this accomplishment is undervalued precisely because the American people no longer see terrorism as an imminent threat.
I bet lgm still has his tinfoil hat on, Soap.
Now, there’s a PhotoShop for you, Blind_Mule, if you’re one here today - lgm wearing a tinfoil hat.
I will never forget what these people have done to our country and our military through the years. They thought they would go on killing American’s without any President doing a thing. Well, they were wrong about President Bush. I admire him for that. I have not lost my fear of them, they are just waiting for their chance again. We will have to see which next President will deal to protect our country.
L
Oh, the accomplishment is taken for granted, and will get swept under the rug by the MSM, while parroting Obama’s ideology that we’d be even safer if we had been having a dialogue and negotiations with terrorists and their supporting states the last 7 years.
I see your point about it being a no-win situation, but it’s been that way for years. As long as we have some good leaders do the right things without regard for how much “credit” or “glory” they will receive, I can accept not winning in the current court of public opinion.
The MSM will not vindicate Bush, but history will.
Sorry, but I’m not sending any congratulatory sentiment towards President Bush on not having been attacked since 2001 any more than conservatives are willing to give President Clinton any credit for having way less civilian casualties on American soil all without embarrassing ourselves with secret prisons and destroying habeus corpus.
The Towers fell because the new administration was more concerned with Iraq than al-Queda. I’m not saying that the concern shouldn’t have been there, but the administration got their priorities wrong and lives were lost.
Funniest damn thing I’ve read all day.
Thanks for the laugh, see-dubya.
This is moonbattery so outrageous that it should expose the author to civil liability from persons in the administration and from members of the public who experience pain and suffering at the memory of the attack.
Good post, See-Dubya
“Especially if Hopey McChangerson gets in office.”
Hehehe.
“The Towers fell because the new administration was more concerned with Iraq than al-Queda. I’m not saying that the concern shouldn’t have been there, but the administration got their priorities wrong and lives were lost.”
Can you elaborate on that, Rusty?
Or maybe people are coming to the realization that the threat was exaggerated in the first place.
Hopey McChangerson sounds like one of Snow White’s dwarfs.
Bush was preoccupied with Iraq the first seven months of his term? How do you know that?
Ignore eight years of incompetency and dereliction from Clinton, lets focus on the less than eight months Bush was there.
If only Monica hand’t distracted Clinton…bin laden would be dead. Right, Rusty?
If #26 isn’t September 10th thinking, I don’t know what is.
“Hopey McChangerson”
A HA HHA BWAHAHAHAAAA!
eaglehaslanded–
There’s a big hole in downtown Manhattan that says they’re (and you’re) wrong.
And there are people who want to make more of them.
Better, in my opinion.
Our government wouldn’t have an open borders policy if we weren’t safe from terrorism. I trust our government and especially George Bush, Dick Cheney, and that lettucehead guy to keep my family safe.
eaglehaslanded said:
Or maybe people are coming to the realization that the threat was exaggerated in the first place.
What!?
Usually, your posts are at least intelligent.
Today seems to be a rather large exception.
First, its nice for you to display that no matter what good someone does, if you disagree with them, you spit in their face as a result.
Talking from a security standpoint, the entire Middle East has always been something we keep our eyes on. Iraq wasnt some centerpiece issue as you make it seem until AFTER we were attacked. Your timeline for what effected what is completely backwards.
Clinton did in fact have less casualties during his administration. But is that assessment fair in the face of small operations he knew of, versus sending 150,000+ troops overseas. I dont think thats intellectually honest. what is honest, however are that the homicide rates in cities across the US are on par with the casualties we’ve had so far. And that’s an ongoing issue that Clinton did NOTHING to remedy.
Just as an aside…
If you think that these “secret prisons” and these light-handed interrogation techniques are something new that Bush brought in, you’re sadly, sadly mistaken. These things have been in place for years, enduring both Republican and Democratic practices. Waterboarding isn’t nearly as harsh as i think we should to do people, and its not nearly on the same level as what is done to our people overseas.
Just something for you to think about for a few minutes.
Not if the damage done by that policy is greater than the damage avoided — if we’re going to get all pragmatic about the safety/liberty debate. I don’t think we’re fundamentally more safe than we were before 9/11. Then again, I don’t think there’s a lot we can do to drastically change that in a free society. We can certainly be safer, but we’ll never be as safe as people want us to be. A society in which terrorism was impossible is not a society worth living in. That doesn’t mean we accept terrorism. Far from it. But the idea that we can eliminate terrorism is more dangerous than the idea that we can ignore it. Neither is correct, but the damage caused by the former mentality is greater, more fundamental, and more permanent than the former. Terrorists can kill people, destroy property, or interrupt various economic engines. Authoritarian terrorist hunters can dismantle the very structure of this nation, and they’ve already started.
But I doubt that many Americans have such a principled objection to government expansion surrounding the war on terrorism. What’s likely is that because there have been no attacks of significance, people have realized that terrorism isn’t about to become a daily reality like it is in Israel, and that the threat has been exaggerated. They’ve realized that the value of the dollar and the price of gasoline has more of an effect on their lives than the activities of Osama bin Laden, or anyone in Iraq or Iran. They have other priorities, as well they should. You can’t expect people to stay in a perpetual state of fear when the threat has failed to deliver for seven years.
And yes, this hurts McCain, because McCain has positioned himself as a know-nothing on economics at a time when economics trounces safety as the issue on the forefront of politics.
All I can do is shake my head. I feel a deep sorrow for those of your ilk.
Rusty is competing with lgm today.
Rusty, your hero, Clinton, managed to get 7,500 active duty personnel killed without fighting a war on ANY front while Bush and our military are managing a war in two countries (three if you count the USA – but somehow I doubt it) and has lost 9,500 brave souls. Explain to us why you cannot give Bush ANY credit.
These numbers are all deaths, accidental, hostile…
Numbers to note:
Clinton:
*Highest number of death by terrorist attacks until 2001
*Higher suicide rate by number 1,517 (and they say that military suicide is up under Bush)
(DOD stats 1980-2006)
Yeah, because all the al-Qaeda videos on the web - coupled with the teachings of the Koran and Hadith - are all about showering non-Muslims with daisies and kittens, right?
Any time fanatics threaten to behead, blow up, nuke, or destroy me and my country for merely existing outside their 6th century worldview, I take that threat as serious. You can call it “exaggerated”, but I think history - from the Crusades through September 11 - proves what you call exaggeration is harsh, harsh reality.
WTC1, Oklahoma City, 9/11. It really doesn’t take much for the government and media to register 100% on the FUD meter. One incident can be the lynch pin for all matters of freedoms being taken aware all in the name of protecting our freedom.
Nice job, #38
Erm… not in the public mind, no. But the Bush Administration was gearing up for war against Iraq from its first days in office — early 2001. The 9/11 attacks were merely the catalyst for public support of that invasion.
The eight years where the attacks on Americans were incredibly limited? How many Americans did we lose to terrorism and war under President Clinton? 200? Compare that to President Bush’s thousands upon thousands.
But Bush is pardoned because he seems like an alright guy. Clinton, on the other hand, is a slime ball. Competence be damned!
My assertion that President Bush cared more about Iraq than Bin Laden comes from Richard Clarke and the fact that a slew of administration officials were part of a group dedicated to overthrowing Saddam Hussein. Iraq was the foreign policy focus. Not Bin Laden. This was a fatal error.
Support candidates w/ your $$$$ –
William “Bill” Russell
Allen West
Tom Mc Clintock
—the dems won’t be in full charge!!!
Soap, I’m a bit lost. 7,500 soldiers died under Clinton’s watch? Uh, what?
Abstract, you’re right in that casualty count isn’t a good barometer to judge presidents. However, President Clinton went eight years with the largest attack being from a domestic enemy. Islamic terrorists were mostly thwarted.
Sure, in the meantime, Saddam Hussein was abusing human rights and growing wealthier. Not good. But Americans were safer. Once we had an administration that prioritized Iraq over terrorism, the window was open for a massive attack.
That the attack was followed by a woefully misguided invasion of a non-involved country that hates us was just a bonus.
Rusty
Clinton: 7,500
Bush: 9,500
Those are the facts, deal with them.
So much moonbattery today from people who normally have somewhat rational discussions. Must be something in the water.
Yes, we know.
Take it up with the DOD.
We are vulnerable to “Personal Jihad”. A half dozen terrorist with standard hunting rifles hitting some of our more famous Victim Disarmament Zones like DC, NYC, Chicago, San Fran, etc., would reek havoc. Look at what Muhammad and Malvo did in the DC area. Six dedicated shooters and couple of thou worth of rifles and ammo….
#40
The September 11th terrorist attack plan was already in the works when Clinton left office, and the memo Gorelick wrote at Justice ordering the CIA and FBI not to compare notes (maybe to prevent scrutiny of Al Gore and fundraising shenanigans involving the Peoples Republic of China?) had more to do with the attacks than anything Bush supposedly should have done his first seven and a half months, when Congressional Dems were holding up confirming key national security personnel.
Idiot.
Soap, in what war? Two Americans died in Kosovo. The USS Cole and WTC attacks killed about 30 combined. And the OKC attacks killed 166.
Where does 7,500 come from? Am I forgetting about a massive war or terrorist attack?
*168 in OKC.
Still not adding up to 7,500.
Soap, you talk about DoD statistics. Uh, could you maybe provide those?
Let’s not forget that Bush was tied up with litigation after the election, time that is usually spent assembling a Cabinet. Regardless, 9/11 is a direct result of Clinton’s policy of inaction during his terms.
OT
from Powerline
Obama offers to let Mafia have Teamsters back in exchange for their support…
What did Clinton do during those attacks against him?
1993 World Trade Center Bombing? 6 Killed 100 wounded. Clinton did not even go to the site.
Somalia Black Hawk Down timeframe? We pulled out and left because the problem obviously solved itself.
1997 Kobar towers?
1998 Embassies?
2000 USS Cole?
What exactly was Bill focused on during those times other than Monica?
If you were an islamist and you saw the reaction after 9-11 would you try it again or move on to Plan B ? Feeling safe is an illusion nothing is safe in this world. Fear is in the minds of some of the population but for many others anger not fear is the primary emotion. There’s only one way to deal with the islamists and that is to take back any territory they have invaded over the last 1400 years. There’s only one place where this has occurred and they are enraged about it, can you name that country? We are getting a lot of islamists in the ME but what we are doing so far is similar to the Doolittle raid (on a much larger scale) during WWII, we have attacked the enemy on their turf but we haven’t changed anything on the ground, ideologically. The raid irritated the Imperial Japanese it uplifted many Americans morale but it would take the following years of all out onslaught to win the war. The IJ’s were not all that different than the islamists, different deity, that’s basically it. Winning the way we did, did change the people and the country, nothing short of it would have. If you believe I am wrong about this, fine, but pay close attention you have a front row seat. It’s already started, there’s little we can do to stop it, excepting what I mentioned above, a real inconvenient truth I’m very sorry to say.
Pay attention as I will only repeat myself once.
Under Clinton we did not fight wars on any fronts and we still lost 7,500 military personnel. Out of those 7,500, over 1,500 took their own lives (that is 20%).
LINK
Some of the pages are not loading at this time but I printed them out just for people like you who continue to throw Clinton in our faces. I also have a link to the Clinton admin and his Dem shills who were screaming Iraq had WMD’s and we should stop them.
So, give us ALL a break with your Clinton worship.
#49
He is probably talking about total military members dead from all causes, including accidents and natural causes.
Of course, all else being equal, over an entire eight years Bush wouldn’t have many more military dead, since there are a lot less troops, since Clinton gutted the armed forces at a faster rate than he ballooned the bureaucracy, so he could claim to have shrunk the Federal government.
Since it took a couple of years for the deep slashes to go into effect due to the budget cycle, Clinton probably had more “man-hours”, as it were, of total military size at any time multiplied by time, so there would tend to be more non-combat deaths. Plus, morale was probably poor, and perhaps some of the troops drank more. More accidents. My entire military service was during the Reagan years, so I was always proud of my commander in chief, but I can imagine having Billary as commander in chief might have been enough to drive some to drink.
I’ve a better poll question: do people feel the threat of a terrorist attack will be greater with John McCain in office, or with Barack O’Bummer as Prez? The results of this poll is great news for dim-ocrats, because rather than understanding that Republican policies have kept us safer; the electorate will simply be uninterested in the issue of which political party will better protect us.
Ok, Soap, I checked and your numbers are BS. Well, no, your numbers are accurate. They just don’t matter in the context you’re presenting them in.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics, am I right, Soap?
Sure, 7,500 soldiers died under Clinton. They died of things like illness, accidents, and natural causes.
I was comparing the presidents in terms of terrorist civilian casualties and combat deaths.
And, again, Clinton is under 200. Bush is at at around 7,000 or so.
To reiterate abstract’s point, this doesn’t even matter that much. Once 9/11 happened, an increase in casualties was inevitable since we had to go into Afghanistan.
But let me again say that President Bush’s focus on Iraq instead of Islamic terrorism was a fatal mistake. Same goes for the decision to invade Iraq.
I can’t believe some of the moonbattery on this site. Who left the gate open at huffpo?
Americans feel more safe?? That can’t be true since Barak Obama said we are less safe….and he’s the Messiah, so he should know!
Rusty,
The numbers I listed are total military deaths - PERIOD.
Clinton lost 7,500 TOTAL - no wars.
Bush lost 9,500 TOTAL - several fronts - three countries.
That is just military.
If a 20% suicide rate under Clinton dose not scare you - well.
Credit where credit is due?
Since it seems to be a topic here are two links that layout the number of wartime deaths for all of the US wars … the first link covers all of the wars and the second link has a breakdown of combat deaths since Viet Nam …
US War Deaths
US Post-Viet Nam Military Deaths
Ignoring Islamic terrorism essentially, by treating it as a criminal problem right through January 2001 while al Qaeda organized the passenger jets as guided missiles terror plot.
Rusty is right, Clinton bears no responsibility.
Rusty-
TIME magazine 1998- Bill Clinton wanted to attack Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein…why? Because he knew Hussein was a tyrant who was supporting terrorists responsible for killing Americans (both civilian and military). And Clinton knew it was the right thing to do.
But students protested at Ohio University, so Clinton backed off and did not do what was right.
After 9/11, Pres. Bush was obligated to remove Hussein from power due to the fact that he could give possible nuclear capabilities to the same terrorists responsible for Sept. 11th.
We fought a war on 2 fronts…and are winning that war. You are upset because your boy, Bubba, lost his chance for a viable legacy. Now GWB has that legacy and you lefties can’t stand it.
But, hey, Obama’s coming up and I am sure he will bring peace to the whole wide world!!(by putting Israel under the bus…) Then you can have that legacy you always wanted!!
Well, Rusty, what in the hell are you talking about this time???What the hell is a “terrorist civilian casualty??? Civilian deaths caused by TERRORISTS….HOW IS A PRESIDENT RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT??? And if 7500 Military died of “illness” and “accidents” and “natural causes” in Clinton’s 8yrs, then shouldn’t that number be subtracted from Bush’s 8 yrs if you are comparing combat fatalities….Bush’s focus has proved effective and you, Sir, are just plain confused….or worse…
#22 rusty said:
That’s your prerogative.
That’s a bit of a skewed comparison since al Qaeda didn’t complete their WTC and DC plans until shortly after Bill Clinton left office, don’tcha think?
That’s a convenient qualifier seeing that it ignores all of the US terror casualities on Clinton’s watch that occured overseas, no?
Secret prisons and “destroying” habeus corpus for foreign combatants/terrorists who want to destroy the US don’t “embarrass’ me in the least. But with that said, we don’t know the half of what Bill Clinton did in the 1990s regarding secret prisons and “destroying” habeus corpus because he won’t tell us, and what little proof that might exist seems to walk out of US Government buildings in the clothing of his former officials, never to be seen again. I do remember a brief NY Times Sunday Magazine article pretending to be shocked that Clinton did indeed engage in the practice of shipping bad guys off to countries like Egypt in order to get the intel that he wanted. So much for the democrat party’s reverence for habeus corpus!
The major media (pre-2003) may be wrong, but I thought that even they conceded that the reason the Towers fell was because substantive intel and contact with Bin Laden was lost (pre-1998) when he discovered that the Clinton Administration was listening in on his satellite phone conversations? But I will concede that it is difficult keeping up with liberals as to why 9/11 happened.
A cursory review of how many missiles Clinton lobbed at Saddam Hussein vs al Qaeda in the 1990s will prove to you that you have your administrations mixed up.
Somehow, through your existing opinions, I get the feeling that: if President Bush had indeed showed the concern you now demand by addressing the pre-9/11 al Qaeda/Bin Laden threat with appropriate force to knock them out…you would have been one of the first to squeal something about destroying “habeus corpus.”
Great post Mark J…maybe the best on this topic I’ve seen around these parts. Not surprisingly, it gained no traction from the peanut gallery in this here echo chamber.
Miss MM, This is so absurd to believe that we are safer now than we were at 9/11.
It is also very insane to believe that We are safer because of GW Bush’s policy to bring the fight to the enemies..
Hello, Alqaeda is gaining more strength everyday in Pakistan, a country with nuclear weapons. Whatever way we spin this, AlQaeda is still out there, Bin Laden is still out there.
Bush’s policies didn’t help atall, they’ve made America weaker.
Pakistan is on the brink of a catastrophic faliure and civil war. Pakistan didn’t do enough to go after them. We need Barrack Obama to confront those bastards in Afghanistan/Pakistan, even go inside pakistani terroritory to chase them and rule em out as he promised.
Best Wishes/God Bless America!
LOL.
Keep saying that to yourself and your friends, Mmmm Kay?
That was a great comment and not lost. Surrender the idea that the Clinton admin and the Democrats built the foundation before Bush gained office and we can get on common ground.
HA! Peanut Gallery? Speak for yourself, twit! Surprised you didn’t use your big word, “sanctimonious” somewhere in that comment.
Notice how dakine NEVER makes a statement on the topic, but only on the commenters?
Now go back and shine the judge’s belt buckle, you lackey.
wise_man # 65,
You don’t frikin know the jist of it..
Do a little bit of research.
Just goto google and do a detailed research on taliban and Pakistan.Taliban inside pakistani military, nukes, Musharraf, Nawaz Sharif
BTW, What happened to AQ Khan? Why was he protected?
From Audacity of Hope: “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”
Root em out or stand with em, which one is it today?
Audacity of a Dope courtesy of Hopeymchangitude.
First, we’re not winning. The Taliban is in resurgence and Iraq has been a disaster. We’re holding ground. That’s not acceptable since we’re going to be leaving these countries eventually. And the American people, correctly, want that sooner rather than later.
As for GWB vs. Clinton’s legacy, please. Clinton presided over eight years of peace and prosperity. He managed to fight a war and stop a genocide with international cooperation and with only two American casualties. That’s gold standard right there. He also left with some of the highest approval ratings in history.
George Bush made a mistake by focusing on Iraq both immediately before and after 9/11. He watched the American dollar go to the crapper and has seen the deficit shoot up to unknown territory. America’s international reputation is a joke. We’ve lost diplomatic footing with almost every single country on Earth. He is the least popular president of the 20th Century.
Some legacy!
must.go.puke.now
Blue stains on your dress? Should be after being on your knees in worship to him.
If an administration makes immoral choices, I’ll take the adulterer over the people who falsify intelligence as an excuse to bomb a country and kill tens of thousands of civilians every time.
Clinton’s so called “peace and prosperity” came form ignoring all potential problems, kicking the can down the road. His so called balanced budgets were achieved by slashing the military.
Falsify intelligence? Please elaborate.
I know “Bush Lied, People Died” rhymes, which is enough for the extremely simple minded, but it isn’t actually true.
That Americans today may feel less threatened by terrorism since 9/11, and that this might reduce national security as an advantage for McCain in the election, is known as “Being a victim of your own success.”
The longer you go on being successful at something, the more tempting it is for some people to take success for granted and lazily gainsay it (e.g., Rusty), or to swallow their own propaganda and claim that it’s all an exercise in deception (e.g., eaglehaslanded).
One can simply and sufficiently dismiss eaglehaslanded as a crank; that’s why he/she never expands upon the “it was all exaggerated” slogan in lieu of argument.
Rusty’s flabby reasoning, however, suggests something more like standard liberal pseudo-intellectual dishonesty, such as:
Let’s review: Khobar Towers… two vaporized embassies in Africa… the first WTC bombing… the foiled conspiracy to bomb the Holland Tunnel and other sites in NYC… and a destroyer that somehow managed to avoid sinking after having a huge hole blasted into its side: what was “incredibly limited” about all of these incidents was the response to them — when we bothered to respond at all.
Colin Powell, when he was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had a placard on his desk with a quote from Thucydides: “Of all the manifestations of power, it is restraint that impresses men most.” That seemed to be the philosophy of the Clinton administration when it came to terrorists murdering Americans, or killing people of other nationalities while trying to get at Americans.
But Thucydides was only partially correct — you have to insert the word “reasonable” before “men” to make his claim work.
The lesson that unreasonable men like Osama bin Laden draw from “restraint” in the face of their murderous aggression is that their enemies are p*ssies — and that violence not only pays immediate dividends, but also makes the neighbors more inclined to buy into “Strong Horse vs. Weak Horse” rhetoric.
That 3,000 people didn’t die on American soil in one day during Clinton’s watch was no reflection of any kind of superiority to his passivity in “coping with” instead of dealing with the rising tide of islamic terrorism in the 1990s. Clinton simply got lucky.
If, for example, the first WTC bombing had worked as planned and toppled one or both towers, scores of thousands would’ve died that day. And because in Rusty’s mind hundreds of dead Africans and thousands more injured don’t count when American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania get obliterated, that’s Clinton’s good fortune, too: because that way Clintonoids like him go on rationalizing to themselves how Oklahoma City was somehow “worse.”
Nikita Kruschev said, “A man thrusts a bayonet into the darkness. If he hits mush, he keeps pushing. If he hits steel, he pulls back.” Clinton offered up mush in response to each of the terrorist attacks against Americans, here and abroad. George Bush replied with steel. Clinton’s record on terrorism is one successful attack after another against Americans; Bush’s is no more successful attacks after 9/11.
But in the mind of the intellectually dishonest and bankrupt, it’s Clinton who deserves the praise. Sure.
Huh? What century?
Crusty/Soap, Let me just into your little chat. Let’s take the word of Bin Laden Himself. Not a right wing hit piece now is it Crusty. That’s PBS interviewing Binny. Note the Date of the Interview Crusty? It’s 1998. Here’s a little sample of the question and answer interview, Crusty
Now please go pound sand with Billy.
#63 dakine said:
I can’t speak for others, but #35 didn’t gain traction with me because I found his critical points to be a bit bland. For instance:
#35 said:
I have lived and worked in downtown NYC pre and post-2001, so I couldn’t disagree more with Mark Js sentiment on a personal level. On a domestic level, I also disagree, because I haven’t remotely seen the results of 9/11-level destruction since 9/11. Ergo, I have felt fundamentally more safe since 9/11.
Easy for you to say, but I have numerous acquaintances who I haven’t seen since 9/11 who, I guarantee, would feel otherwise.
Not by the measure of sheer domestic bodycount on 9/11 vs. since.
I apologize for my skepticism, but which unalienable rights have been denied you since 9/12/01?
I guess that your fear is my vigilance. And which is it…non-existent terror or too much due diligence, or neither for you? You seem to imply that defensive measures against terrorist threats is an overreach because the threat doesn’t exist to begin with. Wasn’t this the position of the Clinton Administration that led up to 9/11? Didn’t 9/11 prove this position wrong? After only seven years, you want to return to such a disproven and deadly theory?
Do me a favor, if you don’t believe in preventive dental care, don’t go…but don’t abolish the dental industry for those of us who do believe in prevention.
Which intelligence was this?
Rusty is just one of those people who can’t tell the difference between being wrong and lying.
78
He can’t answer. I already asked.
Facts don’t matter. “Bush Lied, People Died”. It rhymes. That is what matters.
#71 rusty said:
But what do you do when they are both one and the same?
Agreed. The attack still happen under Bush’s watch. Bush and Condi were briefed on the risks, but the attacks still happen on Bush’s watch. And Bin Laden is still alive.
Exactly. Soap, I’ll take the perjury and the stains on the blue dress over invading a country with no direct ties to the 9/11 attacks. Are you one of those yahoos polled, who believe Hussein was responsible for 9/11?
There haven’t been any more terrorist attacks on our soil under Bush since 9/11. Hell, good, there shouldn’t be any attacks. That’s not the freaken standard of a great presidential legacy.
Nevermind our border, or the economy, or the billions per month spent on attacking the wrong country, Bush’s legacy is preserved because there was only one deadly terrorist attack or our soil during his whole time in office. Yeah, maybe according to about 28% of Americans.
I guess it’s time to re-evaluate the Carter legacy. How many civilians died because of a terrorist attack on our soil while he was in office?
I’m glad we haven’t been attacked again since 9/11, but there never should have been a 9/11, or a subsequent war in Iraq. I could give a damn what a brutal dictator Hussein was, because our foreign policy should not be based on ridding the world of brutal dicators. Elephants, if you lose this next election to a guy with hardly any experience, and tons of baggage, you can thank the legacy of George W. Bush. You’ll blame McCain, but it all comes down to what Bush has done to the party of Lincoln and Reagan. He is your Carter, but 2x the years in office doing damage.
Yeah, W. thanks for not letting us get attacked again.
To quote Chris Rock:
“I take care of my kids”
Rock- “What do you want a cookie?”
BOOM GOES THE DYNAMITE.
If BHO is in office you can count on getting attacked.I will lay odds he will be no where near the area hit.
It takes a true blockhead to blame the victim for the number of times he’s attacked. But there are blockheads in the world, so…let’s celebrate diversity.
Following your link soap-box, I could 7500 for the Clinton years, but during GWB, the total seems to be approximately 11,000.
Where are you getting the 9,5000 figure from?
Edit: 9,500
43 is doing far better than FDR and FDR is often cited as a great wartime president–even though FDR allowed hundreds of thousands of soldiers to die. Oops, that’s mistress-Rusty thought. Sorry.
What a bunch of morons, most of you were probably sucking your thumbs during gulf war one. Saddam lived by the code of revenge, even if it takes a thousand years, and sons of saddam adhering to a death pact of honor for the father were worse. I remember saddam using WMD’s against his people yet some say he didn’t have them, where’d they go, no matter I’m sure they will turn up somewhere someday. Saddam polluted the gulf with oil after the first war he should have been tried in the international court, he wasn’t. Notice how the leftists, so green on the outside, have nothing to say about that? Clinton was responsible for Kosovo, they were tired of their women being raped, again Clinton treated women like whores but that’s not an isolated case with leftists they treat all their women like whores. I don’t care if you leftists get yourselves murdered but I do care about you helping in the murder of the rest of us. Leftists are the party of green, gangrene.
The Carter legacy, I don’t have to re evaluate it I lived through it as a taxpaying adult I never did, put on a sweater. As I said, thumb suckers, freaking retards.
Look at all the little trolls running around here. Read Binny in his own words. He waged war with America because of CLINTON.