Are some people going to blame George Bush if America is attacked by terrorists again?

Question

If we are attacked by al qaeda in a fashion similar to or worse than 9/11, are certain people going to think it would not have happened if we hadn't been in Iraq?

Can this question please be discussed civily/ without the drama? I doubt it, but I'm hoping. :)

HEY, thanks everyone for being civil right now.. I appreciate your opinions even if they differ from my own!

Answer 1

Being a Monday morning quaterback is always fun. You have a clear vision of what should have been done or what could have been done to change the outcome of the game.

Such a small percentage of people actually play professional sports, and most of us just sit back and watch. When things go well for "our team" we are fully supportive, and when things go poorly, we generally criticize "our team" even if we love them.

While this parallel does politics and the current state of affairs a great misjustice, I think there are some lessons that we can draw from my analogy.

So it is in American politics. There are few that will stand up and lead our country, or put themselves out there as candidates. There are few that will accept the responsibility and the burden of making historic and life changing decsions for our great country. Those that do, no matter the party or position, deserve our respect and admonition.

Such is our President and those that have gone before him. Putting criticism to the side, who of us answering these questions is envious of our President and the decisions he, his administration, and congress have to make about the safety and security of our homeland and our interests abroad?

Still, there are those of us who choose to be the Monday morning quarterbacks of our country. When things go our way, all is good. After the attacks on 9-11, we were unified. Things were bad, but we thought it best to support our leaders and rally behind them. When things got tough, many of us turn to criticism or worse.

While there will be those that will blame a person, a philosopy, or an approach, we are better off as individuals and as a country if our justified anger is properly placed.

We are attacked every day. In Iraq, our brave soldiers are attacked every day by thugs, rodents really. Do we blame the soldiers for these attacks? God forbid. We blame the attackers, and we seek to bring them to justice.

In the homeland, should we be attacked once again, we should blame the attacker. More importantly, we should all support any and all efforts to make sure that it never happens again. That starts with fully supporting the war abroad, whether or not we fully agree with every decision.

The stakes are too high to argue over the front or the tactics. We all need to exercise some trust and respect for our President. If you choose not to trust our leaders, then run against them for office and stop the rhetoric.

If you choose to blame someone other than the evil doers of such attacks, then point the finger at yourself and me for not doing more or giving more of ourselves to win this war and protect our homeland.

Answer 2

Of course people will blame it on the war in Iraq. and to be fair it's been a major recruiting tool for Al queda.

But, if America is successfully attacked again, it won't be because of Iraq. It will be because Bush has insisted on cosmetic security measures like seizing baby formula and cigarette lighters. putting a lot of critics, but no terrorists on the "No Fly" list and treasonous expansions of his own power, like the PATRIOT Act, while lobbying against real measures like enhanced customs inspections and controlling access to the Employee areas of airports, where terrorists could access the planes without going through securtiy screening. Bush has also touted his Homeland Security Agency, while undermining the only Agency proven to be effective against terrorist plots, the FBI.

For that matter, whether or not you believe that Bush was behind 9\11, it is undeniable that the Bush cuts in Security spending went a long way to helping the plotters succeed.

Given the cost of 9\11 and the expense of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, remember that one? Republicans would rather you didn't. I'd have to say that as cost cutting measures go, the security cutbacks were somewhat less than successful.

Answer 3

Of course there will be many that would blame him. Unjustly so.

How about we, as Americans, put the blame where it belongs, on the terrorists themselves.

Did we blame George Washington for the Brits raping and pillaging?
Did we blame Lincoln for the start of the Civil War. Remember it was the confederates that fired the first shot in that one.
Did we blame FDR when Japan attacked us?

No we didn't. How could one man be to blame if the terrorists actually do pull off another attack.
Of course those that would blame him if it were to happen again, would also say, after they have whined about the Patriot Act being unconstitutional, would say that he didn't do enough.
He can't win while he's attempting to lead a bunch of kindergarteners.

Answer 4

Iraq won't get the blame. The next attack will be blamed on Siria or Iran. Yes, there will be another attack before Bush leaves office and yes, he will try to declare nation wide martial law. I can only hope that all our gun toting conservatives will see the light then. If so, then we can all band together and turn things around either peacefully or by force. For those who say "what about the military and the tanks?" The military is sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution. Unlike our president who took the same oath, they actually will do it.

Answer 5

Fact is, they will attack again, it won't really matter who is on guard during that time, when it comes to terrorism, it is easy to pull it off, because as Rumsfeld stated awhile back, we have to get it right all the time (defending against it) they only have to get it right once.

Bush has definitely made it harder, in some aspects, to pull it off, but America is a free society and non invasive, for the most part, so if a true "sleeper" cell were to pull something off, it wouldn't surprise me in the least.

All we can do is be vigilant, and remember, if you get a funny feeling about someone, don't hesitate to let someone know, if they check into that person correctly, that person will never know they were scrutinized, I know we don't want to feel like the girls of Salem and calling every olive skinned American a "Witch", but let us inform the people that know how to sift through the wannabes and the verifiable threats.

And, btw, where were we in 1993 when they attempted to take down the towers the first time? We weren't in Iraq. What crimes against humanity did we commit to warrant that attempt?

They are an incredibly patient and dedicated enemy, they waited eight years to attack us again. That is why I get so dramatic, the question of "IF" we are attacked is moot, the real question should be "WHEN".

Answer 6

Of course some people will. Many people tend to point fingers in such situations. If someone mugs you, there'll always be a 'caring' friend who tells you that you shouldn't have taken that route home, as if its your fault you got mugged - always justifying the crime. The truth is, the terrorists are the terrorists, not Bush. I'd like to see SOME people become prez so we can see what they would do in his situation. On the other hand, all that money (and lives) spent on Iraq, really, more should have been done for security at home first! I can't figure him out on that one.

Answer 7

There has been many attacks both during the time we were not in Iraq, and when we were, that were thwarted by counter-terrorist intelligence, here in the USA, so the argument that there have been no terrorist attacks on US soil because our troops are in Iraq, is a fallacy.

<>
You mean like people blamed Clinton for being weak on national security when there was a Republican majority when the Clinton proposals were debated in the congress?

Was it not a republican majority that didn't bother funding a border fence, when they voted to build one?

Answer 8

Well, since Bush did not close the borders on 9/12 and they are still wide open, I would have to say he has done a very poor job protecting America from future terrorist attacks.

He has taken away our rights with the pseudo Homeland Security Act, abandoned the search for Bin Laden, and attacked Iraq because of bad intelligence.

Come to think of it, maybe Bush should just declare all problems are due to bad intelligence. His.

Answer 9

Actually, I would blame Bush and his cohorts, because if he had focused on going after bin Laden instead of Saddam Hussein, then we probably wouldn't have so much to worry about. Not only that, but it's actually been reported that the war in Iraq has become a cause celebre among Muslim fundamentalists, and as a result, a whole new generation of terrorists is now being bred.

Answer 10

If Bush isn't to blame, who would be?
If we are attacked like we were on 9/11, we are not as secure as Bush and his followers have been claiming all these years since 9/11 and before.
The Iraq quagmire is to blame for more terrorism in the world, not just in Iraq where there was none to begin with. But it has created more enemies of the U.S and the U.K. Who else would anyone blame for not protecting it's citizens?
50% of our tax dollars now go to the military alone.