Has George Bush made us safer at home or weaker ?

Question

Please give supportive reasons or examples for your answer.

Answer 1

Take a close look at George Bush's record on terrorism suggests that his favorite issue may actually be one of his vulnerabilities. He unquestionably helped unify the country in the weeks immediately after Sept. 11. And, thanks partly to aggressive intelligence operations, there hasn't been a repeat of Sept. 11 so far. But that's not the same thing as framing a successful anti-terrorism policy.

Any analysis of Bush's anti-terrorism record has to be divided into pre-Sept. 11 and post-Sept. 11. And in both periods, there is considerable evidence to challenge Bush's contention that his actions have made the country safer.

The pre-attack case is outlined in a memo that's making the rounds of the Kerry campaign. Written by a Democrat with long experience on terrorism, the memo draws heavily on the final report of the Sept. 11 commission. It begins by bluntly stating one of the investigation's findings: "In the face of dire warnings in the summer of 2001, Bush failed to direct his government to work together to prevent attacks."

The Sept. 11 panel gathered some devastating evidence about the administration's actions during the spring and summer of 2001. Former CIA director George Tenet told the commission that by July 2001 the "system was blinking red" about the al Qaeda threat, but some senior civilian officials at the Pentagon questioned whether the threat reporting was accurate. Two senior officials of the CIA's counterterrorism center became so worried about the administration's lack of response to the threat warnings that they considered resigning and going public.

The commission summarized the administration's pre-attack mistakes this way: "[T]he domestic agencies never mobilized in response to the threat. They did not have direction. . . . The borders were not hardened. Transportation systems were not fortified. Electronic surveillance was not targeted against a domestic threat. State and local law enforcement were not marshaled. . . . The public was not warned."

Bush himself bluntly criticized his pre-Sept. 11 performance in an interview with The Post's Bob Woodward. "There was a significant difference in my attitude after September 11," Bush said, noting that until then, "I didn't feel that sense of urgency, and my blood was not nearly as boiling."

The president was hardly alone in failing to appreciate the danger al Qaeda posed. But what did he do after the attacks? Bush is campaigning on the argument that his actions since then have made the nation safer. But that claim is challenged by James Fallows in an article in the October issue of the Atlantic. Fallows contends that Bush lost sight of the al Qaeda threat in 2002 and that he squandered that year in preparation for an Iraq war that, whatever its benefits for the Iraqi people, has increased the terrorist danger to the United States.

Fallows bases his argument on conversations with military and intelligence professionals. He says the view among these insiders is that the administration's push to topple Saddam Hussein diverted attention from the postwar reconstruction of Afghanistan, the capture of Osama bin Laden and the destruction of al Qaeda: "Step by step through 2002 America's war on terror became little more than its preparation for war in Iraq," he writes.

The final outcome of the war in Iraq is impossible to know. I continue to believe that it was a morally just cause and that toppling Hussein was a gift to the Iraqi people. But it's clear the postwar occupation was botched and that the net effect may have been to create more terrorism rather than less. "It is hard to find a counterterrorism specialist who thinks that the Iraq War has reduced rather than increased the threat to the United States," writes Fallows.

The U.S. reversals in Iraq aren't an argument for pulling out, which in my view would only make the terrorist danger worse. But a realistic evaluation of where we stand in Iraq (rather than Bush's simple assertion that the war has made the world safer) is a necessary starting point for getting future anti-terrorism policy right.

Would Kerry conduct the battle against terrorism any better than Bush? It's impossible to know, given the vague generalities the Democrat has offered so far. But by framing his campaign around anti-terrorism, Bush has opened himself to the basic question: Just how successful have his administration's policies been? If the Democrats can mount a serious critique, and offer a clear anti-terrorism policy of their own, they could transform Bush's strongest issue into his Achilles' heel.

Answer 2

OMG this isn't really close.

Look at how many more terrorists there are in the world. As one General in Iraq put it, "We can't kill 'em as fast as they're showing up."

Every time we bomb a civilian target or worse, that person's loved ones hate the US and some of them radicalize.

Just check out Fox News' reports on the hatred some radicals have of this country. This is due directly to Bush's policies.

Also, have you noticed how we now have to worry about N/ Korea, Venezuela, Iran and others? Those folks didn't have the guts to try half the stuff there doing now six years ago. We are bogged down in Iraq and don't really have the will to cap and control those also ran tyrants.


Safer?? I don't think so...

Also, to all of my friends to say "We haven't been attacked in six years we are safer." After 1993 we weren't attacked for eight years, does this make Clinton two years superior to Bush?

Judging the administration on the lack of horrific attacks on this country is truly the lowest bar of approval you could possibly set for him, pathetic... we can do better

Answer 3

What are the odds of hitting the lotto...hmmm....pretty rare huh....the same for as to whether we're more safe or not. Most of the terrorist attacks on the US have been perpetrated by Americans...so who are we being made safe from...Its just that the US/Israel has an agenda in the Middle East and that is to maintain Israel's superior status in the region and maintain the sale of Iraqi oil in Dollars not Euros. The terrorism debate is a smoke screen for the Zionists and the NeoCon TransNationals.

Answer 4

I believe it was Obama who was president when Shahzad got his citizenship, correct? How is Bush responsible for this man's actions, then? People all over the world have negative feelings regarding Bush and his presidency- that doesn't mean they're planning on setting off a car bomb in the middle of New York City. What exactly is the point to your question?

Answer 5

Safer by all means - there has not been any more attacks since 9/11.

Answer 6

In fact, all plans of terrorists are discovered here and now. Terrorists' organizations also are distracted by Iraq so they cannot concentrate their force to terrorize us. Since 9/11, they can do nothing here. I feel safe to take train or bus to go to work. I think it is safer now.

Answer 7

How many attacks have we had since 9/11? I say safer.

Answer 8

Safer. We are far safer now than we were on 9/10/01, just not as safe as we THOUGHT we were then.

Answer 9

Totally unsafe. No border security, no real airport security(just a pointless hassle), wanted to sell our harbors, military overseas and stretched to capacity, violated our constitutional right to privacy by tapping our phones and emails(more than just terrorist, there are plenty of americans on the no fly list), allowing big business to abuse the system, getting us deeply indebted to China, ratcheting up tension in general around the world...............

Answer 10

I'd say he has made it safer,

He has developed the department of homeland security.

Unfortunately al-qaida is still a real threat