"Little debate" indeed: Media uncritically quote Bush's claim his policies kept us safe
SUMMARY: Numerous media outlets have uncritically quoted President Bush asserting, regarding the controversial measures adopted by his administration in the name of national security: "There is legitimate debate about many of these decisions. But there can be little debate about the results." But these outlets have failed to note that questions have, in fact, been raised about the importance of Bush administration policies and actions to the obstruction of terror threats.
As Media Matters for America noted, The Washington Post uncritically reported President Bush's January 15 assertion regarding the controversial measures adopted by his administration in the name of national security: "There is legitimate debate about many of these decisions. But there can be little debate about the results." Numerous other media outlets including the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, The Hill, and McClatchy, as well as MSNBC's Morning Joe similarly uncritically quoted Bush making this assertion. However, as Media Matters noted, a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released on April 17, 2008 -- titled "Combating Terrorism: The United States Lacks Comprehensive Plan to Destroy the Terrorist Threat and Close the Safe Haven in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas" -- found that "[t]he United States has not met its national security goals to destroy terrorist threats and close the safe haven in Pakistan's FATA [Federally Administered Tribal Areas]."
Investigative journalist Ron Suskind has also reported that many CIA analysts believe Al Qaeda leaders have declined to attack the United States for strategic reasons, not because of the Bush administration's counterterrorism policies. And the credibility of the threats of several terrorist attacks the Bush administration supposedly thwarted has been disputed, as has the importance of Bush administration policy to the obstruction of terror threats. Moreover, a 2006 National Intelligence Estimate (AIE) reportedly "found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks."
During his "farewell" speech, Bush stated:
As the years passed, most Americans were able to return to life much as it had been before 9/11. But I never did. Every morning, I received a briefing on the threats to our nation. And I vowed to do everything in my power to keep us safe.
Over the past seven years, a new Department of Homeland Security has been created. The military, the intelligence community and the FBI have been transformed. Our nation is equipped with new tools to monitor the terrorists' movements, freeze their finances and break up their plots.
And with strong allies at our side, we have taken the fight to the terrorists and those who support them. Afghanistan has gone from a nation where the Taliban harbored al Qaeda and stoned women in the streets to a young democracy that is fighting terror and encouraging girls to go to school.
Iraq has gone from a brutal dictatorship and a sworn enemy of America to an Arab democracy at the heart of the Middle East and a friend of the United States.
There is legitimate debate about many of these decisions, but there can be little debate about the results.
America has gone more than seven years without another terrorist attack on our soil.
On the January 16 edition of Morning Joe, after MSNBC aired clips of Bush's speech, including his assertion that "[t]here is legitimate debate about many of these decisions, but there can be little debate about the results," Meet the Press host David Gregory remarked, in part, that Bush's "focus is on being a 9-11 president and the fact that he believes quite fervently that the decisions that he made though controversial ... were responsible for keeping America safe and for avoiding another terrorist attack." Later in the broadcast The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan noted the Bush administration's interest in "put[ting] their own label on, and it is 'we kept you safe.' " Noonan added: "I think that they feel in the administration that it is the biggest thing that they can say that everybody can know is true."
From the January 16 Los Angeles Times article:
The outgoing president acknowledged no mistakes. He conceded suffering "setbacks," though he did not detail them, and he said that there had been a "legitimate debate" over his decisions in pursuing the struggle against terrorism.
But he said his success on that front was indisputable.
"There can be little debate about the results," he said. "America has gone more than seven years without another terrorist attack on our soil."
Bush hailed Afghanistan, where America first targeted Al Qaeda and the Taliban after the 2001 attacks, as a "young democracy that is fighting terror and encouraging girls to go to school."
He described Iraq as transformed from a "brutal dictatorship and a sworn enemy of America to an Arab democracy at the heart of the Middle East and a friend of the United States."
And Bush declared victories on the domestic front, arguing that Americans pay lower taxes and that children are learning more in school.
From the January 16 New York Times article:
"As the years passed," Mr. Bush said, "most Americans were able to return to life much as it had been before 9/11. But I never did. Every morning, I received a briefing on the threats to our nation. And I vowed to do everything in my power to keep us safe."
He went on to recount some of the decisions that flowed out of that vow: the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the creation of "new tools to monitor terrorists" movements -- tools that civil liberties advocates argue are unconstitutional. He did not mention his authorization of harsh interrogation techniques, another decision that has been among the most controversial and divisive of his presidency.
"There is legitimate debate about many of these decisions," Mr. Bush said. "But there can be little debate about the results. America has gone more than seven years without another terrorist attack on our soil."
In giving the speech, Mr. Bush carried on a tradition of farewell addresses that dates to George Washington and continued, most recently, with Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. (Mr. Bush's father, the first President Bush, did not give a farewell address.) Mr. Reagan's address, especially, was deeply personal, laden with wistful references and reflections of America as a "shining city on a hill," the phrase coined by John Winthrop, a colonial-era governor of Massachusetts.
From the January 15 Hill article:
The president looked back to the moment that defined his presidency and discussed the impact that the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks had on him and his time in office.
"That morning, terrorists took nearly 3,000 lives in the worst attack on America since Pearl Harbor," Bush said. "As the years passed, most Americans were able to return to life much as it had been before 9/11. But I never did. Every morning, I received a briefing on the threats to our nation. And I vowed to do everything in my power to keep us safe."
The president noted that some of the policies he put in place have been controversial and he also conceded that there is "legitimate debate" about many of his decisions.
"But there can be little debate about the results. America has gone more than seven years without another terrorist attack on our soil," the president said. "This is a tribute to those who toil day and night to keep us safe -- law enforcement officers, intelligence analysts, homeland security and diplomatic personnel and the men and women of the United States Armed Forces."
Instead of delivering the address to a camera from the Oval Office as is the custom, the president spoke from the much larger East Room in front of an audience.
From the January 15 McClatchy article:
He acknowledged that "you may not agree with some tough decisions I have made. But I hope you can agree that I was willing to make the tough decisions."
Much of the public has turned against the war in Iraq, where more than 4,200 Americans have been killed in the conflict.
Many tactics that the Bush administration employed in waging its war on terror drew widespread criticism, such as establishing the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; setting up secret CIA prisons abroad; holding suspected terrorists for years without charges; wiretapping Americans without court warrants; and practicing "rendition" of terrorist suspects to authoritarian governments that would interrogate them more harshly than U.S. law allows.
Bush noted that Iraq "has gone from a brutal dictatorship and a sworn enemy of America to an Arab democracy at the heart of the Middle East and a friend of the United States."
His initiatives, he said, have kept American safe: "There can be little debate about the results. America has gone more than seven years without another terrorist attack on our soil."
The president also hailed his domestic record.
From the January 16 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
BUSH [video clip]: As the years passed, most Americans were able to return to life much as it had been before 9-11. But I never did. Every morning, I received a briefing on the threats to our nation. I vowed to do everything in my power to keep us safe.
There is legitimate debate about many of these decisions. But there can be little debate about the results. America has gone more than seven years without another terrorist attack on our soil.
MIKA BRZEZINSKI (co-host): Well, with us now the moderator of Meet the Press, David Gregory. David, what did you make of the president's farewell address last night?
GREGORY: Well, good morning. I -- you know, look, I thought it was interesting. I think we've seen over the last few days both in -- with the press conference, now this speech to the nation, some of these exit interviews that the president has done, he's got a pretty narrow focus on -- in terms of what he wants Americans to be thinking about with regard to his presidency. I mean, think about this moment: He's in the East Room, he's facing an American public that is still pretty divided politically but not divided on him. He's overwhelmingly disapproved of in all of the public surveys, and he leaves office that way with the cloud of Iraq and with the cloud of the economy in such a deep recession.
Again, his focus is on being a 9-11 president, and the fact that he believes quite fervently that the decisions that he made, though controversial -- the big debate this week about closing Guantanamo Bay, the detention center there, the treatment of prisoners -- that those decisions were responsible for keeping America safe and for avoiding another terrorist attack like 9-11. As he said, the gravest threat that President Obama will face will be the impact and the threat of another terrorist attack. So this was not a grand sweep through his presidency, though he mentioned some things like education; this is focus on one event that defined and will always define his presidency.
[...]
WILLIE GEIST (co-host): Peggy, why do you think that argument, which has been made by the president and the vice president over the last couple of weeks, hasn't been more compelling to more people, that we kept you safe for the last seven years?
NOONAN: Well, one thing that keep -- first of all, I think it is compelling in a way. I think it is a headline on this Bush administration. It's bookended; it started with a terrible terror event. We all assumed another terror event was coming quickly. He is correct when he says, try to remember what it was like on 9-14-01 and 9-20-01. Everybody thought that Osama, having hit us once, planned to hit us again fairly soon. We thought it would be a one-two punch.
He is correct when he says that. Sometimes, however, it's best to leave it to history to decide for you -- do you know what I mean? -- to put a label on your administration. They have decided perhaps they can't trust history, so they're going to put their own label on, and it is "we kept you safe." I think they feel in the administration that it is the biggest thing that they can say that everybody can know is true. But one of the reasons some people, it doesn't quite grab them, is that we don't know what was done to keep America from getting hit again, and we cannot know because that involves intelligence, the airing of which might undercut our attempts to keep us safe.
I'm gonna throw a bone to the WITH puppies. The guys nuts, he's out in a few days, why be critical when he piles on one more delusional stinkin' piece of poo.
Yah fushillinger susinach! Aech me poor nibish.
Sorry just my Scottish Jewish ancestry kickin in there.
In the meantime, STAND BACK SHE"S GONNA BLOW!!
That would be "fershlugginer sasanack."
Just my Welsh pedantic ancestry kickin in there...
The Irish in me prefers "forsakeyourown Sassanach."
Three down, three to go,
Waiting for the Cornish, Manx, and Bretons,
To pile on the Saxon foe.
Col.,
I think it is interesting that soon to be former President Bush is now trying to make his case for the history books. His legacy. He is trying to make the case that he "kept us safe from attack" and (as I saw today in an op-ed) that he "saved 10 million lives in Africa". Of course both points are entirely speculative at best, but that will not stop his apologists from claiming both as absolute fact (because apparently few of them know the difference) repeatedly over the next few years. MMFA is doing a good job here pointing out some of the inconvenient truth to keep things in perspective here.
Open, I was just kidding. Just a little bagging on the WITH people, I appreciate every bit of BS being pointed out from 2001 to 2009.
liberals, and mmfa, don't get it. The results are the facts, there has not been an attack on our soil in over seven years. period. There is no debate on that. the whys and wherefores can be debated, but not that.
how about 9-11? there is no debate that bush ignored warnings.
is 9/11 less than, or more than seven years ago?
Was Bush President, or not President seven years ago?
nothing I said indicated I don't know the answer to your question. however, mefirst asking about pre 9/11 warnings indicated he was suffering from a timeline deficiency.
i'm aware of the timeline. i'm asking you if bush was responsible for 9-11?
and you prove my point, liberals don't get it.
I don't think you get it. I think us liberals tend to believe a presidency begins when one is sworn in, not 8 months later after a horrific national security meltdown. But hey, wouldn't it be nice to rewrite history and pretend Bush wasn't in charge for 9/11?
What's to get, jimbo. Shrub didn't become President on 9/12/01. The WTC was still standin' for well over seven months after shrub was installed upon the throne.
That's like tellin' me that the Museum hasn't been robbed since the night security fell asleep and they stole all the Van Gogh's, Picasso's, Rembrandt's and Pollack's, but since then the place hasn't been robbed once and we haven't lost anything. Well, except for New Orleans, anyhow. Let's throw a damned parade for the nightwatchman and give the security company a hefty contract.
9/11 was on his watch. Don't give me this psychotic slop about him keepin' us safe. He didn't. He screwed the pooch. Thanks to that schmuck, there's all kinds of goin' outta business sales this weekend. Go pick yourself up a case and a clue.
Next weekend's going out of business will be Obama's fault
So you admit that 9-11, the economic collapse and increase in terrorism is all bush's fault?
the issue is whether this is due to the genius of bush. i think he's an idiot, and his inattention was the reason for 9-11. why should he be praised for something that didn't happen, and not criticized for what did happen?
that is the issue you want to discuss because you also don't get it. i addressed the little debate point that mmfa raises, you on the other hand want to divert the issue away from the facts, no terror attacks in over seven years. period. end of story.
did it make us safer when bin laden was allowed to escape at tora bora?
The earth has not fallen into the sun in the past 7 years either. So what?
What you are pretending not to get is that many of us argue that the lack of attacks on US soil is not due to anything extraordinary that the Bush Administration or the DHS has done. From the informaiton on plots intercepted in the past 7 years it seems that many of them would have been intercepted under the same policies and procedures in place if they ever had any chances of success anyway.
Had Clinton done his job and taken Bin Laden when he was offered to him, 911 mostly likely would have never happened. Bush has kept the country safe, and no liberal attempts to re-write history will ever change that FACT. We will now see what happens since Obama says he will close gitmo and reverse many of the Bush policies that have proven effective.
I am glad however, that his little party is only costing 150 million. We know the economy is not in any danger, and 150 million is nothing.
Oh shove your FOX-approved revisionist history, please. Bin Laden was NEVER "offered" to Clinton-- only Hannity Zombies still believe that. "Liberal attempts to rewrite history?" Talk about projection!
And you're complaining about the money being spent for the Inaugural-- of course. Massive showy parties are fine for Reagan and the Bushes. A Democrat? "Ooooohhh, the waste!"
The hypocricy is just astonishing.
Bush inaugral 43 million.......obama...152 million and counting.
Yes, there tends to be more enthusiasm for Democratically-elected Presidents than there is for Usurpers. As a People, we're funny that way.
Well, you can just blame that on double digit inflation caused by Bush. OOOPS!
Actually, the whole 150 million thing is another lark by right wing screech monkeys. Obama's inaugural is costing about the same as Bush's did.
Do you have any FACTS to back up that LIE?
http://mediamatters.org/countyfair/200901140010?show=1
Also see todays initial article.
Your proof and source would be good to see also. I suspect, like most requests for support of your positions, said request will remain unfulfilled, or said info will be bogus, though loud and filled with foam and spittle.
pointofview, who offered bin laden to clinton? where and when? specifically?
The Sudanese wanted Clinton to take him and then he asked the Saudis to do so. This came from the MOUTH of Bill Clinton, not from Hannity, Rush or any other or your bogeymen. Once again liberals are ignoring history:
Ex-President Clinton's Remarks on Osama bin Laden
Delivered to the Long Island Association's Annual Luncheon
Crest Hollow Country Club, Woodbury, NY
Feb. 15, 2002
Question from LIA President Matthew Crosson:
CROSSON: In hindsight, would you have handled the issue of terrorism, and al-Qaeda specifically, in a different way during your administration?
CLINTON: Well, it's interesting now, you know, that I would be asked that question because, at the time, a lot of people thought I was too obsessed with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.
And when I bombed his training camp and tried to kill him and his high command in 1998 after the African embassy bombings, some people criticized me for doing it. We just barely missed him by a couple of hours.
I think whoever told us he was going to be there told somebody who told him that our missiles might be there. I think we were ratted out.
We also bombed a chemical facility in Sudan where we were criticized, even in this country, for overreaching. But in the trial in New York City of the al-Qaeda people who bombed the African embassy, they testified in the trial that the Sudanese facility was, in fact, a part of their attempt to stockpile chemical weapons.
So we tried to be quite aggressive with them. We got - uh - well, Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan.
And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again.
They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.
So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan.
We then put a lot of sanctions on the Afghan government and - but they inter-married, Mullah Omar and bin Laden. So that essentially the Taliban didn't care what we did to them.
Now, if you look back - in the hindsight of history, everybody's got 20/20 vision - the real issue is should we have attacked the al-Qaeda network in 1999 or in 2000 in Afghanistan.
Here's the problem. Before September 11 we would have had no support for it - no allied support and no basing rights. So we actually trained to do this. I actually trained people to do this. We trained people.
But in order to do it, we would have had to take them in on attack helicopters 900 miles from the nearest boat - maybe illegally violating the airspace of people if they wouldn't give us approval. And we would have had to do a refueling stop.
And we would have had to make the decision in advance that's the reverse of what President Bush made - and I agreed with what he did. They basically decided - this may be frustrating to you now that we don't have bin Laden. But the president had to decide after Sept. 11, which am I going to do first? Just go after bin Laden or get rid of the Taliban?
He decided to get rid of the Taliban. I personally agree with that decision, even though it may or may not have delayed the capture of bin Laden. Why?
Because, first of all the Taliban was the most reactionary government on earth and there was an inherent value in getting rid of them.
Secondly, they supported terrorism and we'd send a good signal to governments that if you support terrorism and they attack us in America, we will hold you responsible.
Thirdly, it enabled our soldiers and Marines and others to operate more safely in-country as they look for bin Laden and the other senior leadership, because if we'd have had to have gone in there to just sort of clean out one area, try to establish a base camp and operate.
So for all those reasons the military recommended against it. There was a high probability that it wouldn't succeed.
Now I had one other option. I could have bombed or sent more missiles in. As far as we knew he never went back to his training camp. So the only place bin Laden ever went that we knew was occasionally he went to Khandahar where he always spent the night in a compound that had 200 women and children.
So I could have, on any given night, ordered an attack that I knew would kill 200 women and children that had less than a 50 percent chance of getting him.
Now, after he murdered 3,100 of our people and others who came to our country seeking their livelihood you may say, "Well, Mr. President, you should have killed those 200 women and children."
But at the time we didn't think he had the capacity to do that. And no one thought that I should do that. Although I take full responsibility for it. You need to know that those are the two options I had. And there was less than a 50/50 chance that the intelligence was right that on this particular night he was in Afghanistan.
Now, we did do a lot of things. We tried to get the Pakistanis to go get him. They could have done it and they wouldn't. They changed governments at the time from Mr. Sharif to President Musharraf. And we tried to get others to do it. We had a standing contract between the CIA and some groups in Afghanistan authorizing them and paying them if they should be successful in arresting and/or killing him.
So I tried hard to - I always thought this guy was a big problem. And apparently the options I had were the options that the President and Vice President Cheney and Secretary Powell and all the people that were involved in the Gulf War thought that they had, too, during the first eight months that they were there - until Sept. 11 changed everything.
But I did the best I could with it and I do not believe, based on what options were available to me, that I could have done much more than I did. Obviously, I wish I'd been successful. I tried a lot of different ways to get bin Laden 'cause I always thought he was a very dangerous man. He's smart, he's bold and committed.
But I think it's very important that the Bush administration do what they're doing to keep the soldiers over there to keep chasing him. But I know - like I said - I know it might be frustrating to you. But it's still better for bin Laden to worry every day more about whether he's going to see the sun come up in the morning than whether he's going to drop a bomb, another bomb somewhere in the U.S. or in Europe or on some other innocent civilians.
As usual, typical conservative response leaves out the legalities surrounding the issue.
At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him,
Blagoboy, you're falling into the same trap so many wingnuts do at this site--- copy & pasting when you should be reading & comprehending. TRy it sometime, you'l' avoid making such an ass of yourself.
I guess Khobar Towers didn't count. To be fair "officially" it was blamed on a Saudi Shiite group though many US investigators believe OBL had his fingerprints all over this action.
Slicky is still perpetrating the lie that he just missed OBL when OBL dropped into the aspirin factory/apothocary to pick up his prescription.
To be fair "officially" it was blamed on a Saudi Shiite group...
When you have to put "officially" in quotes, you may not have a very good argument
...though many US investigators believe OBL had his fingerprints all over this action.
I'm sure "many people believing" something is legitimategrounds for arrest some places. Thankfully, not in the U.S.A.
Col., if ex-CIA DO agent Robert Baer is to be believed, Khobar Towers was an Iranian operation. He makes a compelling case in his new book, The Devil We Know, which should be required reading for every American, IMHO.
the 9-11 report debunked the whole "turn bin laden over" nonsense. they said the same thing as clinton. there was no legal basis to bring him here as nothing could be proven in 1996. and as clinoton noted, he was accused of being "obsessed" with bin laden, something you could not say about bush before or after 9-11. bush said about a year after 9-11 he wasn't too concerned about where he was.
There's also no debate that Bill Clinton ignored warnings -- like actual terrorist attacks on US soil. The WTC was attacked in 1993; why didn't Clinton do more to prevent future attacks? He had seven years to take out al Qaeda. Seven years. Yet the terrorists attacked the USS Cole and other targets.
The fact is this: America has gone more than seven years without another terrorist attack on our soil. No one believed that was possible in the days following 9/11. But it is a fact. Screedy handwaving and subject-changing won't change that.
Clinton can claim the same, but it hasn't stopped Bushevicks from trying to lay 9/11 (and virtually everything else that's gone south under Bush) at his door.
i don't believe i mentioned Clinton.
you just want to ignore those 8 months before 9-11 when bush was in charge and ignoring warnings.
No, I don't believe you did. Is it, however, your view that the fact that we weren't hit for the last seven years of his administration were due to his efforts?
Was due to his efforts. Sorry 'bout that.
the whys and wherefores can be debated
This is a rare instance where you're right, JimmyB.and Bush and the media are saying the opposite, that it's because of Bush's policies, which makes them wrong. Any drooling idiot should be able to figure that out, what's holding you up here? Did all of you wingnut posters have a jousting contest using your skulls this week?, you seem to be getting stoopider lately.
Just like all of you flaming libtards to make fun of people instead of having honest debate!
Ooops, sorry Col. I just get so lonely because the idiots only seem to be able to respond if you call them names and I wanted to see what it felt like.
An an autority on drooling idiots, we should listen to the Col. He has made it this far. Bush has kept us safe. Can Obama do the same while trying to get the rest of the world to love us? I doubt it
I would just like to point out that shortly after 9-11, I received a very tacky coffee mug from my mother-in-law to commemorate that notorious day.
Since I have received that coffee mug, however, there has not been one attack on US soil. Not one. Therefore, the coffee mug has kept us all safe.
All hail the tacky 9-11 coffee mug!
If you would just wash it once in a while, it wouldn't be so tacky!
Who was running the country on 9/11? Bush has made us LESS safe.
An an autority on drooling idiots...
looks like the short bus is missing a passenger.
An an autority on drooling idiots, we should listen to the Col. He has made it this far.
Thanks, Pointy, but you flatter me. I wouldn't call myself an "authority" on drooling idiots, but I 've made it this far as an informed student of drooling idiots, and I owe some thanks to you, Copiousdissent, anutteramerican, rinohunter, proudconservative, Philib, and others. Without you, I'd be like Jane Goodall without her chimps.
If you think Bush has kept us safe by having thousands of Americans killed by terrorists during his term, I find your doubt that Obama can do better a little disturbing and passimistic.. It's Like you actually want Americans to die in order to support your crazed ideology, and that's sick.
republicans just don't get it. Just because there hasn't been an attack on US SOIL means nothing - there have been several insances of an attack on US SOIL followed by a several year stretch of nothing happening - didn't mean a darned thing in the long run. Bush may or may not have prevented an attack, but to date, his track record is no better than the 7 year stretch Clinton had between the 1st WTC attack and the USS cole.
In other words, ya got nuttin'.
Oops, forget the SOIL part. Seems we've had several attacks on US soil by terrorists since 9-11...
http://counterterrorismblog.org/2008/08/no_attack_in_the_us_since_911.php
I've been reading you telling us all that "we don't get it" all day long. My friend, I am afraid that it is you who don't get it. Here's why.
First, we were attacked on 9/11, and immediately, or almost immediately, we went to Afghanistan, and took out a government who helped to perpetrate that attack. A move that was roundly cheered as being the right move at the right time. We told that Taliban, we were coming to get them for their efforts in hiding and helping Bin Laden, and we took them out. Unfortunately, our President did not get Bin Laden, dead or alive, as he said he wanted to do. He didn't smoke them out of their holes, he left them in their holes, only to fester and arise again later (now). Combat deaths in Afghanistan are on the rise, while combat deaths in Iraq are down, one good, one bad. I'll let you decide which is which.
In the meantime, we allowed most of Al Qaeda to melt into the hills of the tribal areas of Pakistan, at which point in time, we left them alone. Why? We didn't want to offend our "ally" Pakistan by trudging on their ground (never you mind the whole thing where they outright supported the Taliban, armed them, and also helped to arm Al Qaeda, but that is neither here nor there).
Also, during Bin Laden's tirades, he told us exactly why he attacked the United States on 9/11, for our failure to butt out of middle eastern affairs. Was he right or wrong? I don't know, but having a bunch of US troops near Mecca didn't help any at all.
Fast forward a little bit. We decide, heck, let's attack Iraq on some trumped up charge of they have WMDs. We invade. We find nothing. We leave the country in ruination, and in a bad state, worse than we got there. Sure, we unseated Saddam, but alas, as we now know, that wasn't such a bad thing having him there. Why?
Well, Iran is a majority of Shiite Muslims, as is Syria. Saddam, as someone else said earlier today, was Sunni/Secular. In other words, he kept Iran and Syria in check in the region. Now, with Saddam gone, we have an almost united front of Shiites all gunning for Americans.
Thing is, Bin Laden, and his other buddies have been, for years on end now, talking about how the "great Satan" (ie, America) wants to come in, take over Arab lands, and rule the middle east. When we invaded Afghanistan, and more importantly, Iraq, he proved true what he had been saying for years on end, and what the other crazies have been saying for years on end. We proved him a truth teller, and in the process, created the best recruiting tool he could ever hope to have. Also, the cracking down on individual liberties in the US by our executive branch, also proved that the terrorists won already. How? They attacked us, and we got some of rights taken away. Mission accomplished by the terrorists.
Anyway, now that we're in 2009, Al Qaeda is as strong as ever, and maybe stronger, terrorist attacks around the world are at an all time high, possibly millions of people around the world have been killed, maimed, or injured because of it, and Bush is mostly to blame for this. He never bothered to understand what makes the middle east tick, and ignored information and resources available to him to make his decisions.
Because of what Bush did to "protect" the United States, he may have prevented us from being attacked again for another 7 years, but he destabilized an already unstable region, and made most of the rest of the world hate our country, and made us look like the bad guys. He may have prevented attacks, but he made us less safe in the long run.
I think it is YOU, who don't get it.
Your statment:
"Sure, we unseated Saddam, but alas, as we now know, that wasn't such a bad thing having him there"
That statment is so naïve, dangerous, and misguided by radical left ideology it is scary. But maybe you really believe Iraq was better with Sadam and his sons, the rape rooms, the videotaped torture for his pleasure, the killing and gassing of women and children. Where do people like you come from, and how soon until you can go back?
What threat did Saddam pose to the United States? None, absolutely none. To argue otherwise is ridiculous. Did you fail to read the rest of my diatribe about how he kept other countries in check? Nope, you missed that part.
We also tortured. We have raped women in Iraq. We have killed innocents. How are we better than Saddam?
Also, I never said Saddam was a sweet guy. Never. Never would I claim that. Was he a threat to our country? Resoundingly, NO.
The statement was neither misguided nor naive. Bush's invasion of Iraq was one of the stupidest moves ever by a president. We have countless Iraqis dead and millions displaced; the invasion created an atmosphere of hatred towards the U.S. which is the perfect environment for extremists to recruit from; it has given Iran more leverage in the region and Iraq may align itself with Iran; and we have extremists being elected throughout the Middle East. The invasion was a dumb ass move, not to mention a war crime.
Although I believe it is definitely arguable as to whether Iraq would have been better off or not. The point of US foreign policy, however is to keep in consideration the well-being of our own country above all else. Could stability in the middle east be achieved without spending a trillion dollars to do so? Assuming we would spend a trillion dollars for middle eastern stability, do you think a war in Iraq was the best use of that money? Do you think the US is better off as a whole as a direct result of starting the Iraq War?
"Do you think the US is better off as a whole as a direct result of starting the Iraq War?"
Of course he does. Because Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and John Gibson tell him so. What a question!
JamesB's bumper sticker, no doubt proudly displayed on his bumper, must read Thank You, George W Bush, For Allowing Only ONE Spectacular Security Failure During Your Presidency! (Well, except for the Anthrax Attacks.) You Rock!
No. You don't seem to understand logic. Corelation does not equal causation. Al Qaeda attacked on the US mainland only twice in Feb, 1993 and Sep, 2001, how do we know they just haven't even tried or tried hard to attack us?
There is also evidence that Al Qaeda planned a massive operation in NYC, but mysteriously called it off at the last minute. Of course, we found this all out after the fact. There is no indication we had prior knowledge that would have been able to thwart that attack. In that instance strangely Al Qaeda did a better job keeping us safe than the Bush Administration did.
Secondly, By your reasoning, Bill Clinton kept us safer than George Bush with regards to radical Islamic terrorists. He was attacked by Al Qaeda in February of 2001 and kept the US mainland safe the rest of his term - even managing to stop the milenium plot.
Thirdly, the point is entirely speculative. It is very possible that our next attack will come from Muslims who have been radicalized as a direct result of the Bush Administration's foreign policy as it appears happened to bin Laden and other notable terrorists in the past from previous presidents' foreign policy decisions.
Of course, I don't blame the administration for making this argument - whether it is actually true or false. It is in the government's interest to try and make people feel safe, no matter how powerless they are to stop the next attack.
The ultimate problem with this apparent revisionism is that it only deceives gullible people into thinking things like torture are effective means of interrogation and that the drastic changes in our foreign policy were more necessary than they actually were. I think ultimately that will be the real lesson from history about President Bush. He over-reacted and was surrended by people who either enabled or compounded the effects of that blunder.
You mean February of 1993 but otherwise your post is dead on. And can you imagine if the Democrats had spent 1999 and 2000 bleating nonstop "Bill Clinton has kept us safe from terrorism for (six/seven) years?" The right wing would have laughed them to scorn.
The Clinton-haters were also very clear about blaiming Bush for the Feb. 1993 attack, which took place what, a MONTH after Clinton took office? And very clear about blaming 9/11 on Clinton also. So when did Bush's presidency begin? I'm figuring around October, 2005- after the Katrina disaster.
To all intents and purposes, terrorism didn't exist in the US before 9/11. Bush had never heard of it. He never mentioned it. The people didn't worry about it. They didn't have to because there was competence in government.
(In case a critic is reading this, start with "Bush had never heard of it" when responding.)
That's the biggest problem I have with all this revisionist history. People may get the false impression that giving up the freedoms we enjoy as Americans and resorting to un-American and barbaric practices like torture and rendition were somehow responsible for the lack of an attack. None of our freedoms conflict with keeping America protected, nor does acting civilized.
Under Clinton, after the World Trade Center was attacked, we CAUGHT THE GUYS WHO DID IT. And we did it with POLICE and PROSECUTORS. We didn't wage a meaningless "war on terrorism."
Here's a fact -- Richard Clarke's job as antiterrorism coordinator under Clinton was cabinet level, and he had coordinating authority to deal with cabinet secretaries. Under Bush Clarke couldn't even get a single MEETING with anyone of importance on Bush's staff or in the cabinet.
Here's another fact -- when Clinton talked to Bush before Bush's swearing in, Clinton stated explicitly that Bush's biggest immediate problem would be Muslim terrorists, and Bush ignored it.
Here's another fact. Bush received a presidential daily briefing in August, 2001 that was called "Bin Laden determined to strike in US." It explicitly suggested the hijacking of planes. Bush's response was to tell the briefer "OK, you've covered your ass now.", and then go back to riding his bike or clearing his brush.
Here's another fact. Under Clinton, combatting terrorism was a top priority of the Justice Department. Ashcroft's DOJ budget ended those initiatives in favor of combatting pornography and other supposedly "moral" problems.on September 10th or 11th, Ashcroft was giving an anti-pornography speech.
Finally, I'll conclude by asking why everyone calculates the Bush administration as beginning on September 12, 2001. BUSH, not Clinton, was president on 9-11. Bush had been in office for nine months at that point. How come he doesn't bear responsibility for what happened ON September 11th?
For conservatives, the "ABCs" means "Always Blame Clinton." Well, Bill Clinton hasn't been president for eight years now. Time to get a new schtick.
Excellent.
My response to anyone who bleats to me "Bush has kept us safe from terrorist attacks for more than seven years" is to reply that Bush was hired to keep us safe from terrorist attacks for EIGHT years, not seven. He failed.
"End of story," Pointofview.
Greetings from Montpelier. Forty below keeps the riff raff away. It sure feels good to live in the one state that shrub hasn't defiled with his foul stench.
you're right 1st republic. the 9-11 commission called clarke the "most incisive" of all counterterrorism advisers. they also noted his cabinet level position when his issues were discussed, and the fact that the bush administration froze him out of his previous high level positions. they called it a "demotion".
So your claim is that there have been attacks on our soil all along and Bush prevented them for the longest time?
There is quite a brouhaha over it. Why is a good question. For what its worth my answer is this.
This was supposed to be a massive effort to fight terrorism, comparable to our efforts in WWll. Shurb's order to the national population was to go shopping. A child can go shopping. Like children we had to leave the room when the adults needed to talk adult talk about serious stuff that we couldn't understand or contribute to.
Over time, like mushrooms we were kept in the dark and fed sh*t. And like mushrooms grown possibly to be harvested and comsumed.
Don't think anyone mentioned shoes. As in why we take off our shoes as part of the screening pior to boarding an airliner. You remember the dude with the bomb in his shoes. Goevrnment efforts played no part in stopping him. American citizens stopped him.
Been a number of people determined to do crazy things on airliners. Federal Air Marshalls have had to act in some cases. Often though these people have been stopped, restrained, and occasionally sat on by their fellow passengers.
Shurb has no interest in allowing us to defend ourselves against terrorism or be part of the offencesive actions against it and seemingly no interest in sharing any of the praise in fight against it with anyone.
I hope this helps you understand.
I give thanks every time I fly that the shoe guy didn't try to hide the bomb in his BVD's. I can't imagine what we'd have to take off to fly on a plane.
I can only shudder and agree.
U.S. Embassies are U.S. soil. Our embassies have been attacked in Yemen and Belgrade in 2008 (and that's just off the top of my head; I'm sure that there have been other attacks I'm not remembering right now). The anthrax mailings in the U.S. were terrorist attacks. Figure it out--the facts are not on your side.
wonder why he fought the creation of the 9-11 commission then? he not only opposed it, he tried to limit the scope, underfund it, and get the final report delayed until after the 2004 election. because maybe the report showed his record of doing nothing before the attack? of his attorney general downgrading the threat of terrorism?
and that was one of the most wretched of ann coulter's attacks. which was her trashing the "jersey girls", the 9-11 widows who held bush's feet to the fire to create the commission. they were the only ones with the moral clout to force bush to do it, and coulter trashed them as publicity hounds taking advantage of their husband's deaths.
When the CinC who "kept us safe," can tell Larry King that he "dunnow.," how close we might have come to capturing Ben Laden, I have to wonder what kind of attention he was paying to those morning briefings.
Of course, he might have been maintaining operational secrecy, and not letting out sensitive information for political gain...right.
To keep things simple, they hate us for our freedoms so they attacked us.
The administration subverted the constitution, limiting some freedoms.
They don't hate us so much because we're not as free as we once were.
I guess Bush is correct then.
In an odd way I guess we should thank him for keeping us safe but less free.
Worthy of a Jesuit.
You left out "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here". Which raises the question - if we're still fighting them, doesn't that mean we're still under attack?
Attacks on American soil have been close to non-existent since the founding of this country and yet the media acts as though we were being attacked left and right before Bush stole the presidency. We're lucky we haven't been attacked in spite of Bush fanning the flames of extremism.
Another point - we've had 41 journalists killed just in Iraq. I know that republicans don't count soldiers because they just view them as tools for the job, but journalists are civilians. So no, Bush can't claim not a single U.S. civilian was killed since 9-11.
we've had 41 journalists killed just in Iraq.
Not NEARLY enough...
Go fcuk yourself.
People who can read and write, and report facts-- deserving of the death penalty in wingnuts' eyes.
Mighty conservative christian of you.
Is that you, Joe the Plumber?
No, he's Joe the Dumber.
we've had 41 journalists killed just in Iraq.
"Not NEARLY enough..."
The mind boggles and the stomach heaves. The best I can say for you, Boy, is that I hope you've never seen anyone die violently. If you have, you're a vivid example of the word "depraved."
And, oh yes, "liberals are haters."
Crawl back under your rock.
Apologies to all for the personal attack. I knew an investigative reporter who was murdered by right-wing slugs, in Northern Ireland.
Another example of how neocons are full of sweetness and light and liberals are "haters." You sound like Coulter.
We've also had dozen's of conservative christian missionaries killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. More U.S. civilian casualties. Nope, bush didn't prevent another murder of a U.S. citizen after all.
I am sick to death of Bush getting credit for no terrorist attacks on US Soil (something that almost every other President managed to protect us from WITHOUT subverting the Constitution) when I KNOW it's because of the Magic Anti-Terrorism Talisman I keep hanging from my bedroom doorknob.
It's making as good a case for itself as shrub is and it works a hell of a lot cheaper, too.
I think you're giving short shrift to my anti-terrorist lucky underwear. There can be little debate about them.
They've worked so far, Col. Make sure you don't wash them. Don't want the luck going down the drain.
All that "work" for nothing: just above this post, you imply that you wish more journalists had been killed in Iraq. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who would post such a classless, disgusting, amoral piece of drek has nothing of value to add.
Don't blame me for not reading further posts from you; most people learn when they are TEENAGERS that if they want to be taken seriously, they don't "joke" about the death of innocents.
You are beneath contempt.
Back shortly after the 9/11 attacks I made statements for which I was roundly criticized. I stated that I thought the actual threat of any large-scale terrorist attack in the US was pretty small. I was told I had my head in the sand, that my attitude put our country at risk and a number of less polite criticisms. I contend that history has shown, not that WPE Bush kept us safe, but that the actual threat was grossly exaggerated.
The 9/11 terrorists exploited an exceptional security hole, but it was done by a handful of individuals using fairly low-tech methods. That event was followed by a serious reappraisal of every area of weakness we could imagine. Most similar holes were closed to the best of our ability.
The threat of biological and chemical attacks has always been overstated. Both methods require exceptional facilities, equipment, expertise and organization. The results of any actual production would be very difficult, dangerous and expensive to store. They would also be extremely difficult to use effectively as a weapon, more so than most people realize. Even so, those would be child's play as compared with creation and use of a nuclear weapon.
But really, if there were a significant terrorist network with resources in the US, don't you think they'd have been able to attack us regardless of anything WPE Bush did? Think about the reactions to the sniper shootings. Imagine that taking place in eight to ten cities simultaneously. It could be done cheaply and with a relatively low chance of being caught. Railroad tracks could be sabotaged at low risk. A thousand other things could be imagined.
The reason we haven't seen such attacks is clear. The threat simply isn't very large. There aren't many terrorists here and they don't have much for resources. We've elevated terrorism to be a larger threat than it actually is. If I were to list the top 100 threats to my family and me, terrorism wouldn't make the list. I wouldn't put it in the top 50 threats to the country. That doesn't mean the threat isn't real or that we should take it lightly, but our treatment of it should be proportional. The curtailment of Constitutional rights is a gross overreaction.
Don't forget, because they are fanatics and often plan their acts with the idea of a suicide mission in mind, many terrorists have an advantage over more conventional criminals. They only need to evade detection until they commit the act. They don't need escape plans, they don't need to cover up evidence and they don't need to hide after the deed is done.
They also want anything they do in America to be huge. If they decided to do the sorts of smaller attacks like nightclub bombings and suicide belts on public transit that they perform in other parts of the world, there would be very little that DHS could do in advance. We are lucky that the sheer size of this country makes usch attacks impractical in the scheme of achieving their larger goals.
Excellent points from both of you.
And how many U.S. citizens were killed by terrorists on U.S. soil in the eight years BEFORE 9/11?
If anyone thinks a tanking economy and a huge bomb down the throat of one of our major cities and all the deaths of military in Iraq is safe, well you would fall for any shyster and that is what you have done as far as Bush is concerned. Last I checked, the New York towers were hit during the Bush administration. No doubt those skallawags knew the new President could not even think fast enough to scramble a plane to take out the invaders. Yep, sure enough, 9-11 happened on the Bush watch!