Does it matter that there hasn't been "another" attack since 9/11?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chad K
  • Start date Start date
C

Chad K

Guest
I keep hearing this as praise for Bush. But why does he get a free pass on 9/11? Sure, Al-qaeda likely planned much of it on Clinton's watch. But it's not like it happened on Bush's first day, or week, or month. He'd been President for 8 MONTHS! And since then, there HAVE been major attacks in London and Spain. Meanwhile, while there was no evidence of Al-qaeda in Iraq BEFORE we invaded, they are obviously there now, where it is (relatively) easy to kill Americans. Is there any evidence Bush PREVENTED any attacks?I've heard of several attacks prevented by brave American citizens. But have Bush policies systemically prevented any?Phuc: To no one's surprise, you've got your causality backward.Maudie: No, I don't have evidence of attacks that didn't happen. You can't prove a negative, which is my point. Bush is the beneficiary of the many citizens' ignorance.Teragram: "the terrorists knew they could get away with it there"The 9/11 terrorists were suicide bombers for fvck's sake! They didn't need to "get away" with anything.katlanta: Good point. And remember, Bush WAS praised and supported for going to war in Afghanistan, even by a liberal like me. France, of all places, was actually part of that coalition. Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism or 9/11, and the apologists just can't get that through their heads.Mom of 2: Yes, too bad he couldn't have another term. 2 wars, 2 recessions, $4 trillion added to the debt, and 4 million jobs lost is such a tease.Dog Father: Relevance?Heimdall: I've never bought into that theory. I think 9/11 would have very difficult to prevent -- as are all suicide attacks. When a killer is not afraid of imprisonment or death, it's near impossible to prevent their crime. However, I find it ridiculous that Conservatives want to lower the bar of "success" to the point of giving credit for attacks that didn't happen.Maudie: For what am I "blaming" Bush, in this context? I'm simply not giving him credit for some imaginary accomplishment.
 
yes! it is his policies,not the people who follow orders. but they are the hero's
 
No, actually, it does not. Not when you consider that bush HAD the information about 9/11 and DID NOTHING.
 
Praise for Bush...911 was a inside job...thats why there has not been another attack.
 
I've got a rock here that prevents Tiger Attacks while driving - I have yet to be attacked and eaten by a tiger while in my car.
 
shouldn't americans just hush up and be thankful BUSH protected since 9/11 I want to see what any bush hating american would have done if they were president. Oh it's okay you killed millions of our people in just a short time but we won't do anything about it until next time.NO he acted and that is why there hasn't been an attack in the US since. Bush did his best & his best kept us safe and still we had our freedom. Lets see if Obama can do the same although it isn't liekly.!!!!
 
Eight months as leader of the free world is = to one, maybe two blinks of an eye.Yes, it absolutely does matter. Do you have evidence to the contrary?So, London and Spain were not responsible in any way for securing their country or preventing these attacks?No, I am not a big fan nor am I an "apologist" so you can save it. I just understand there is just a bit more that factors in to this. Do you ever consider that?
 
no he hasnt. Bush was fighting his daddy's war. we all know that. We all knew Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were behind the 9/11 attacks. But since Bushy could not get his hands on Bin Laden, he invaded Iraq full force. and we need to get the hell out of there. we just pissed off a lot of people the past few years. lost a lot of life. and when Bin Laden hangs from a rope, i might be satisfied. but right now all i can think of is what a waste the last 7 years have been, for our troops, other countries, and our nation as a whole.
 
Yes, if it wasn't for Bush's policies, views and cracking down on these terrorists, it would have been much worse. Sure there were terrible attacks in London and Spain, but the terrorists knew they could get away with it there, there is only so much he couldve done for them. He was President for 8 months. He saw what happened and acted and nothing happened to us again. Meanwhile with Clinton, there were acts of domestic terrorism as well as terrorism from organizations like Al qaeda. He had no control over anything.
 
What they are trying to say is that Bush put policies into place in order to prevent these. However, the one before that was in 1995 in Oklahoma City, six years prior. Before that one, was an attack in 1975 in New York again. The thing I think is the problem with their using that as praise is that each time terrorists attack, they see what works and what doesn't work. The September 11 attacks were big and could have worked, so what they are doing now is probably sitting back and trying to plan something bigger and better, and that takes a lot of time to plan.
 
I do not think it matters. You could argue that it was the first attack on American soil since 1947 (Pearl Harbor)Yet, why is Roosevelt praised rather than criticized for going into war versus Bush?I think that it's because the enemy was obvious and well targeted in WW2. The wrong enemy was sought after in Iraq.
 
9/11 was not an inside job!! if it was, where is the proof... uummm yeah that's what i though... Bush did a great job. I miss him already!!
 
Ask Jack Bauer, the American public is not privy to the day to day events that result in saving the world.
 
IF IT WERE not TOUGH decisions made by Bushthen region surrounding Afghanistan would have become helland i guess u know what would have happened then in america and europe
 
Back
Top