The Bush Cult likes to point out there have been "no terror attacks since 9-11" - Wasn't 9-11 ENOUGH?

Question

being proud about no new attacks is ridiculous - I guess the continual repition of saying it makes them all feel better that the worst attack on American soil in our nation's history happened while George W Bush was the man in charge of our national security (those aren't MY words, those words came directly from the man himself....)

Answer 1

The Bush administration claims there have been many attempted terrorist attacks that were thwarted by the increased security measures and survaillance put in place since 9/11. If we are to believe these hightened measure are responsible for stopping these attacks then we would have to believe that if not for those measures, there would have been several deadly attacks in the US.

Since there were no terrorist attacks in the 8 years prior to 9/11, and since we did not have those strict safety measures, then we can assume there no attempts being made.

That leads us to one of two conclusions:

1) The war in Iraq has stimulated a much enhanced effort at terrorism against the US, or

2) There really haven't been any terroristic attempts. That our best security measures are bogus and aren't really doing anything , despite the erosion of civil liberties that they have brought about.

I wonder which explanation the Bush Cult prefers.

Answer 2

9/11 was a definite wake up call. I suppose if it had never happened, the world would be a very different place today. I sure wish it had never happened. Even 3,000 miles away, it had life altering consequences for me personally, as my job went bye bye 6 days afterwards and we moved to S. Cal.

This being said, you do have to admit that no terror attacks on American soil is a good thing. But let's not forget our British and Spanish friends who've suffered in the interim, as well as the folks in Bali.

Answer 3

Your question seems confused.

Are you saying that you are glad another attack hasn't occurred on U.S. soil...or that you wish one would so that Bush would be discredited?

In terms of your second "point", absolutely, Bush was in charge of our national security when 9/11 occurred. He had been president for approximately 7 1/2 months.

According to the 9/11 Commission Report, the 9/11 Attackers were planning, training and preparing for the attacks for some 22 months before they occurred.

If you deduct out the 7 1/2 months of the Bush Presidency, who was in charge of our national security for the other 14 1/2 months?

Answer 4

The Bush boys and bohemian grovers had alot to gain from this situation. I mean in a national emergency this fool just sat back and read a childrens book in a classroom full of children about a Goat for like 7 mins., just sitting there like its was No Big Deal.There's tons of evidence on this current administrations screw ups and corruption.I can hear those paper shredders working overtime now, they probably have huge incinerator fired up too!!

Answer 5

First, it's sadistically ironic that W said "Bring It On!" to the terrorists we all fear so much. (Smooth move, guy.) That was quite possibly THE most imbecilic thing he could have said, addressing a group of violent extremists. (Sigh...you can take the Texan out of Texas...)

Also, while taking care to not completely devalue the "work" of Homeland Security, the FBI-CIA-NSC-INS (and of course HBO) it is kind of moronic to take credit for "no attacks since Sept. 11," since I believe it is, to SOME degree, a coincidence there have been none.

Suppose I raise my hands to the sky and say, "I command the sky not to rain down purple rocks!" Should I then be allowed to turn to the crowds, taking credit for this "ironclad protection" and say, "See? I am omnipotent! I said no purple rocks, and there have been NO purple rocks! I have protected you, my people! Vote me back into office!!!"

Maybe the purple rocks just haven't planned their next rain storm. And maybe I'm the only one who appreciates that analogy, which is a bit of a stretch, since our country does not currently have a purple rock shower problem (although Purple Rain was a great album)...it's admittedly a bit esoteric, but maybe someone will see my point.

Answer 6

Of course I like to point out that there have been "no terror attacks since 9-11" it makes me happy... does it upset you that Bush hasn't failed to keep his country safe, would it delight you to no end to be able to laugh in republicans faces if there was another attack, at the cost of lost lives!

Some people need an extreme reality check!!

I'm actually physically disgusted that you would insinuate anything about Republicans not thinking 9/11 was enough.

Answer 7

I agree with you that when Republicans make this argument it is completely ridiculous and ignorant. But I need to point out to you that we were "invaded" in 1994 by Al-Quaeda when they bombed the WTC with mixed results. It was not as lethal or as damaging as 9/11 but they were able to detonate a bomb in the parking garage. With that said though, the neoconservative argument does not consider that Al-Quada is actually not capable of hitting our shores everyday of the year even without monitoring or containing them. They just do not have the resources to attack us like a enemy nation. This isn't to say that they are not dangerous but they are not nearly as powerful as our leaders profess them to be. It took them nearly 10 years to hit us since the first attack on the WTC... we need to ask ourselves why they did not try again before 2001?

Once again though, these are VERY dangerous people. We just should not be panicked by the threat of them... or allow politicians to exaggerate the situation.

Answer 8

Obviously 9/11 was not enough, because the Democrats are still fighting Bush every step of the way as he tries to keep America safe. They want to coddle the terrorists, and they nitpik everything the President tries to do to fight terrorism. They complain about Guantanamo, the CIA, the FBI, wiretapping, judges, soldiers, armour, funding, and basically everything but the kitchen sink. If they really were interested in helping America, they would put their partisan bickering aside and work with him to get the job done. Instead, all they do is accuse, obstruct, deny, and demean.

Answer 9

Bush only took office is January and don't forget that the Al Gore fiasco prevented him from having the usual smooth transition presidents normally get. Remember many of his appointments were delayed? Don't forget the ''wall" that good old Jamie Garilik was instrumental in constructing that prevented the CIA and other intelligence agencies from sharing data with the FBI.

The terrorists did all the planning and laid all the ground work under Janet Reno's nose. She was too busy killing Americans in Waco and Ruby Ridge. She was too busy sending SWAT teams to kidnap a Cuban kid in Miami.


.

Answer 10

Bush makes me very irritating, Chertoff can no longer do a competent job because of the fact Bush is telling to no longer, the protection on our Southern border is very virtually none existent because of the fact Bush needs a loose circulate of medicine, into the US, (drugs is a widespread underground employer in the US)