“As many have pointed out, the reason elected officials tend to neglect infrastructure projects, like reinforcing levees in New Orleans and bridges in Minneapolis, is that there’s no glory when a bridge doesn’t collapse. There are no round-the-clock news specials when the levees hold. You can’t even name an overpass retrofitting project after yourself — it just looks too silly. But everyone’s taxes go up to pay for the reinforcements.
Preventing another terrorist attack is like that. There is no media coverage when another 9/11 doesn’t happen. We can thank God that President George Bush didn’t care about doing the safe thing for himself; he cared about keeping Americans safe. And he has, for seven years.”
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
The Moratorium Site 
September 11, 2008 at 10:46 pm |
As opposed to when Clinton and Bush 41 and Reagan and Carter were President and the country was just *crawling* with terroristic activity.
Please. We don’t live in Northern Ireland or Israel. As far as terrorism goes, we’re pretty safe here and have been for a long, long time. It’s absurd to me when people try to give Bush exclusive credit for it, especially since it’s one dishonest thing he doesn’t do on his own.
September 11, 2008 at 11:25 pm |
I always think it is funny that people think they know as much information as the President. I would like to think that the White House is privy to a bit more vital information than, let’s say, MSNBC or CNN…contrary to what they and others may think. And, I too like to give props to Bush, although he has made mistakes as ALL Presidents do. When his approval numbers went way down after 9/11 amnesia set in, all he had to do was bring those troops home and say ” Sadaam is gone and so are we”. But, I think he realized that the bigger threat was still looming and stayed for the greater good. He could have easily let it be the next Presidents problem. I don’t think it is “luck” that we have not been attacked again. JTG, I can hear you cringe…sorry, I just don’t have amnesia.
September 11, 2008 at 11:30 pm |
JEEZ, I forgot to proof my work AGAIN! Sorry JTG.
September 11, 2008 at 11:35 pm |
Just This Girl —
You are really showing your ignorance. When the Trade Center was attacked the first time, Bill Clinton did….. nothing. When the USS Cole was attacked, Bill Clinton did….. nothing.
Which led, of course to the attacks of 9/11/2001.
And President Bush did something.
September 11, 2008 at 11:42 pm |
If you notice, as policulture brought up, once the Terrorists realized that the U.S. would do nothing in response to their actions is when they ramped it up and did 9/11. Perhaps if Clinton had did more than send some rockets into an apsprin factor to distract from his grand jury testimony, they would have feared the U.S. more.
Did you know a year after 9/11 Frank Rich, the NY Times editor, wrote that Bush was doing nothing to prevent another 9/11 and soon we would have one. Sure glad he was wrong. I’m still waiting for his apology.
September 12, 2008 at 12:13 am |
I said Bush doesn’t deserve *exclusive* credit. I didn’t say he deserved no credit. I said we’re safe here, in terms of terroristic activity, as opposed to Northern Ireland or Israel. Your arguments don’t counter anything I said, and furthermore, nothing I said is false. Therefore, calling me ignorant is also inaccurate.
But really, nice try.
September 12, 2008 at 12:19 am |
Oh, and I should also point out that I said nothing about Clinton’s specific activities. I merely included him in a list of the four Presidents prior to Bush 43. For all you know, I agree with you about Clinton. But instead of choosing to argue with points I actually made, you decided to shoot off with :The Conservative Talking Points RE: Clinton and Terrorism”–which, I once again remind you, are not relevant here.
Don’t feel too badly, though; even professionals make that mistake.
September 12, 2008 at 12:51 am |
“As opposed to when Clinton …..”
“Please. We don’t …..”
When a post starts out like this, I think it is safe to assume that sarcasm is being used and in that case your points were indeed addressed.
September 12, 2008 at 12:58 am |
Because I used sarcasm, it’s OK to assume points that I not only didn’t make, I didn’t even mention? That’s absurd. What if I just started assuming, oh, I don’t know, that you were racist because you’re Conservative? A little severe, but it demonstrates the dangers of assuming.
September 12, 2008 at 1:09 am |
Safe assumtions are when you mention Clinton and “the country was just *crawling* with terroristic activity.” with a sarcastic tone, you are leading the reader to believe that you think Clinton did not turn a blind eye to terrorism when he in fact did. I think that is what was being addressed. How’s THAT for a run-on sentence!
September 12, 2008 at 1:53 am |
I also mentioned Bush 41, Reagan, and Carter, yet nobody seemed to feel the need to comment on my supposed opinions of any of those men.
September 12, 2008 at 1:57 am |
And for the record, if you reply, you’re doing it just to see your own words in print. I’m going back to my own blog, where many many readers disagree with me, but they have two redeeming qualities:
1) They are willing to admit the possibility that, since they are HUMAN, they might be wrong.
2) They disagree with what I actually wrote, rather than what I never mentioned.
Later, fools. (And by “later,” I mean, “I’m never looking at this page again.”)
Oh, and don’t worry about proofreading your work. I only do it because I want people to understand what the hell I’m talking about. I suspect that even if you proofread, that will remain an issue with you.
September 12, 2008 at 2:30 am |
Easy tiger.
September 12, 2008 at 2:44 am |
So what do you guy’s think of this dude’s argument:
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2004/oct/25/00014/
Basically, that as terrible as the 9/11 attacks were, it’s ridiculous to portray bin Ladin and crew as being any kind of really significant threat to us with anything approaching the means to somehow defeat us…that instead of continuing to attack us because we appeared to be weak as Jeff suggested, they continued to attack to provoke us to react and act against our best interests by invading and occupying Muslim countries…
September 12, 2008 at 10:21 am |
So, we should not bother doing anything about him? We shouldn’t do anything about protecting our borders? Should we be like the U.S was in the late 30’s and remain isolationist and watch as Europe falls to Hitler? Maybe be like Neveille Chamberlain and proclaim “Peace in our time” as the Blitzkrieg rolls over Poland?
When Islamic Terrorists set up a nuke in Pheonix will that still not be “really significant”?
The fact is, Bin Ladin has said himself that he attacked us because we appeared weak.
The really sad thing is that 7 years after 9/11 Govco is still spitting on the graves of all those who died. They decide to feel up Grandmas at airports instead of doing something real about security. They decide to pander to special interest groups (on both sides) instead of actually protecting our country. They cry about lipstick on a pig instead of securing our border and punishing those who break the law.
September 12, 2008 at 12:49 pm |
Did you read the article? It doesn’t dispute that the US needed to respond and defend itself. Most people don’t question going after al Qaeda and the Taliban. Unfortunately, Bush and Cheney decided to use it as an excuse to go after Saddam (who had no connection to the 9/11 attack) and that prevented us from finishing the job in Afghanistan and got us into a mess in Iraq that thankfully now is starting to look a little better.
Anyway, this is what has got me thinking…The United States of America is afraid of looking weak compared to a bunch cave-dwellers armed with rocket launchers? Are you kidding me? We portray these guys as being a real danger possibly able to defeat us? Why?
September 12, 2008 at 1:38 pm |
Defeat us? No. Kill lots of people and do lots of damage? Yes.
The “cave dwellers armed with rocket launchers” were able to put together a pretty good plan to hurt us — and as we all know, it could have been a lot worse.
We can debate the merits of going into Iraq (and I think there are good points to be made on both sides), but what cannot be argued is that President Bush has stuck to his guns despite fierce opposition and has kept us free from another attack on our soil.
I wish we could all remember how we really felt on 9/11 and the days after.
September 12, 2008 at 1:39 pm |
Here’s a good read that is somewhat relevant to this discussion:
Click Here
September 12, 2008 at 2:05 pm |
Those “cave dwellers armed with rocket launchers” kept the #2 super power at bay back in the 80’s.
With the left wing trying their best to derail Bush and anything he does, it’s a wonder a kid with a slingshot doesn’t inflict more damage on us.
September 12, 2008 at 3:35 pm |
Roland, there you go trashing America again! 😉
I don’t know much about USSR’s war in Afghanistan but I doubt a case can be made that they were a true military threat to the Soviet Union. That probably should have been a lesson to us about the difficulty of engaging them in a conventional war on their home turf. That is completely different from claiming them to be a real threat to come over here and destroy us.
When we say “al Qaeda is hell-bent on destroying us”, it seems to me to be kind of like saying Don Quixote was hell-bent on destroying the world’s windwills. Yes, the world’s windwill operators needed to take him seriously and prevent him from doing some meager damage here and there (in the grand scheme of things), but they shouldn’t react like they are as delusional about him as he is.
I bookmarked that article when you twittered it but haven’t had a chance to read it yet.
Anyway, we’ve got bigger fish to fry. Apparently we’ll be at war with Russia soon.
September 12, 2008 at 4:49 pm |
Um…how is that trashing America? Pointing out the people who don’t like America being powerful is trashing it?
I guess we shouldn’t worry that Al Qaeda should ever get hold of a nuke because, really, that wouldn’t destroy America or do much harm.
September 12, 2008 at 6:52 pm |
Roland,
I was joking about trashing America. That’s why I winked. I find it funny that you frequently criticize America and then accuse others of “trashing it” when they do it…I’m sure the distinction is clear to you, but to me it looks like another one of those double standards that you relish pointing out in others (like the media). I have no problem with anyone being critical. No matter how good something is, there is always room for some constructive criticism to point out how it could be better.
About nukes, that’s certainly a concern. It’s also not a reality and so isn’t very relevant to a discussion of what kind of threat al Qaeda currently represents. Don’t get me wrong, I’m in favor of going after those bad guys. It’s a shame we allowed Bush/Cheney to distract us from that task with an invasion of Iraq.
Jeff, what do you mean by Bush facing “fierce opposition.” It seems like Congress has mostly gone along with Bush/Cheney approach to a fault. Yes, he got some grief for Gitmo, warrantless wiretapping, extraordinary rendition, mistake after mistake in post-invasion Iraq, etc. but not so much that anyone actually did something about it.
September 12, 2008 at 6:55 pm |
More importantly, Jonathan, what the heck is a windwill?
September 12, 2008 at 7:25 pm |
I was referring to public opinion and constant criticism. Bill Clinton (“check the public opinion polls before making policy”) would have changed course several times!