Is Bush the reason we have not had another terrorist attack?

Question

I often hear people say that Bush is the reason there has not been another terrorist attack since 9/11. I don't know if I believe it. Your thoughts?

Answer 1

I'm convinced his policies have thwarted attacks.
I'm sure also there are other factors to consider.

Answer 2

No yet i'm grateful for Bush for procuring extra human beings politically lively then ever before. properly I even have not been in any vehicle injuries ether. What i will no longer ignore and what the historic previous books won't ignore is that 911 ensue under Bush republican watch. there is fairly no longer a reference interior the historic previous books on the backside attempting accountable Clinton. And now as a results of fact of republicans giving our business could to China we won't be waiting to handle to pay for to guard ourselves from terrorist.

Answer 3

No. Terrorists are smart. They know this country would be more on guard, no matter who is in office, but you will still have people who, no matter what truth you tell them, that bush is the reason why.

Here is the funny part about that statement: If bush is the reason why we haven't had another attack, then isn't bush the same reason why we had one? Again, I personally don't believe it is anyone's fault except the people who did it, but I get tired of ignorant people who want to blame Clinton...

Answer 4

Yes.

1) Due to his friendship with Osama Bin Laden et al, Bush urged them to stop attacking and he would switch focus to hunting other terrorists.

2) At the price of a near police state, we've been able to avoid further terrorist attacks as the government now knows everything about everyone.

3) Bush is a god among men and has used his supreme powers to thwart terrorism. All hail King George II!

Answer 5

No. Look at the history.

We've been hit by a foreign terrorist attack roughly every 7~9 years, going back to the 1970s. So, Bush doesn't get any credit for not having one in the past 6 years.

Just like Clinton doesn't get any credit for not having one between 1993 and 2001 -- that just the average distribution.

Answer 6

NO! That is another LIE. Bush has not made us any safer. If anything he has made us less safe.

How many terrorist attacks have there been in the history of this country? are you surprised that there hasn't been one in JUST SIX YEARS? Do you think we were having an attack every day before bush took office? In fact, bush should get the BLAME for 9/11, because HE FAILED TO PREVENT IT FROM HAPPEEING! Only in America could he be labeled "strong on terrorism" when he was the one in charge when 9/11 happened!!!

Chertoff has a "gut feeling" that there will be an attack this summer.

Answer 7

No, I don't believe it.

We didn't have any before Bush either...except one.

We haven't had any because we have good law enforcement and domestic security...always have had....always will have.

Will somebody slip through occasionally? Sure...it's bound to happen. But that is life.

Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, Germans terrorized half of Europe and bombed the hell out of England - go all through history....no one is immune to it.

Answer 8

no way jose.

Terrorsits like Bush; his middle eastern policies are great for recruitment. Remember how Osama himself supported Bush in 2004?

They're lying low, letting Bush take credit for no new attacks. That way, whe they hit us again, it will embolden a similar response form his successors, perpetuating the Holy War the terrorists want and the Bushies are happy to give them.

Answer 9

maybe not Bush, but the actions taken by him and his administration to heighten security and organize the FBI, CIA and Homeland Security so they could work together with each other instead of against each other. the Patriot act could have played a significant role also.

Answer 10

Then if Bush isn't the reason, thrill us with your acumen.