Bush Apologetics 09-11-01

How did he keep us safe? By creating a haven for al Qaida in Iraq? Giving terrorists a rallying point? Just because we haven't been attacked by now doesn't mean that George W. Bush kept us safe, especially since the effects of his actions will be felt for years to come. We've lost nearly all progress that we had in Afghanistan, we have no idea where bin Laden is and the Bush administration basically re-inforced all of the negative stereotypes that were spread about Americans by terrorists.

And all of this is in addition to the economic crisis that we're in, the ballooning deficit and the total lack of goodwill internationally. Bill Clinton managed to keep us safe after the 1993 bombing at the World Trade Center while balancing the budget, reforming welfare and having a booming economy. And he was respected around the world.

Correlation doesn't prove causation. The fact that we haven't been attacked doesn't mean George W. Bush kept us safe. It just means that we haven't been attacked. Unless you are a soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan and then you've been attacked a lot.

Germany, USSR and Japan hasn't attacked us so W's must be keeping these enemies away from US shores. As JC says, attacks are happening in Iraq and Afghanistan, so are the soldiers safe?

Well, the assessment is going to be very complicated of course. It's very likely that some actions the Bush administration took will have been terrific as far as internal American security are concerned and some will be lousy. The takedown of the Taliban government in Afghanistan, the reorganization and focus on homeland security, certain new intelligence procedures, etc. may all be chalked up as the good moves overall. Deaths of tens of thousands in Iraq, damage to alliances, illegal wiretapping, etc., probably not so good.

Bush kept us safe? You overlook Bush's greatest national security failure--bigger than Iraq--and that is that he and his cronies misread, ignored, or worse, the signs preceding the 9-11 attack that (remember?) killed over 3,000 Americans.

Do the leaders in the agencies responsible for our domestic safety think the establishment of the Homeland Security agency make us safer?

Has the trend of using private sector market-driven agencies in place of government sector employees worked to our benefit in the case for our "war on terror?"

What of the statistics of "terrorism" worldwide, since our invasion of Iraq? If the "terror index" improved?

Should we expect that the establishments put into place by President Bush will remain effective? Do we expect no "attacks" since all is in order? (This despite regular prophecy from Pat Robertson regarding attacks on our soil...)

So Bush will be remembered as a great leader because 3,000 Americans were only killed once on his watch?

And Anthrax no longer counts as an attack?

I think that, like Bush himself, Tony has succumbed to the silent bigotry of low expectations.

But this does make both Clinton and Carter look like Homeland Security gods!

Low expectations? You suffer from memory loss. Right after 9/11, everyone was trying to predict where and when the next attack would come from, not if it would come. It is no small accomplishment that we have not been attacked since. Bash him all you want for the other stuff, but you cannot dismiss or diminish that fact.

AustinRoth, we haven't been attacked HERE but what about the 'Shoe Bomber'? Or the terrorist attacks in India where Americans were targeted? What about the barrage of attacks against Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan? Then there is the fact that multiple people died from the anthrax attacks which did occur on our soil. We have been attacked. Unfortunately it has been our armed forces bearing the brunt of it.

D.E and Davebo,

If you two think that 9-11 was planned and implemented within the eight months that Bush was President, you are disconnected from reality. The fact is that the 9-11 terrorist attacks took years of planning and staging to pull off. Who was President during that time? Bill Clinton. The other two major terrorist attacks against U.S. assets happened on Clinton's watch: the USS Cole and the first World Trade Center bombing. Do some fact checking before you make broad assertions.

I never said that I agree with Bush's domestic or foreign policy. In fact, my first paragraph laid out the reason why I resigned my appointment, in 2002, which was way before any liberals were up in arms. I only said that history will probably treat Bush kindly because we were not attacked again during his presidency.

My view, is that he should have been more attuned to intel coming in predicting the attack, did prevent another attack (there is still no proof that the anthrax came from Islamic terrorists), but in doing so took some actions that were necessary, neglected to do some that would have helped, and undertook many that were an overreaction. He also did help Aids victims in Africa. That's not a long list of achievements.

Knowing what we know now, I really don't see how anyone can still say he was the right choice in 2000.

acspark:

Talk about fact-checking. Ever heard of some of Daily Intelligence Briefings presented to, among others, Condolezza Rice, just screaming for attention and increased alertness against a possible terrorist attack?

"If you two think that 9-11 was planned and implemented within the eight months that Bush was President, you are disconnected from reality." In other words, let's blame it on Clinton?
Let's talk reality here. If there is a terrorist attack one week after Barack Obama is inaugurated, do you think Republicans are going to blame Bush--considering your so-called fact that the terrorists have had eight years to plan and implement the attack.? You know darn well, who they are going to blame. Now, that is being connected to reality.

I love how every other terrorist action in the Western world or that targeted Westerners is conveniently ignored. Bali, London, Madrid....

But fine, let's toss Bush a bone and give him credit for protecting America. The scales still don't balance, and the legacy of torture, "secret" prisons, foreign policy mishaps, bungled occupations, and wrecked economy will live on for far longer than any mystical "protection."

"Who was President during that time? Bill Clinton. The other two major terrorist attacks against U.S. assets happened on Clinton's watch: the USS Cole and the first World Trade Center bombing. Do some fact checking before you make broad assertions."

First of all, the first WTC bombing happened in February 1993 - about one month after Clinton took office. If Bush isn't responsible for 9/11 you can't blame Clinton for the first bombing. Secondly, if Bill Clinton is to blame for the Cole then Bush is to blame for every single attack on U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And I highly doubt history will look kindly on a President who condoned torture, lied to the American people, destroyed the economy and gave us a debt we'll likely be paying off for generations.

"But fine, let's toss Bush a bone and give him credit for protecting America. The scales still don't balance, and the legacy of torture, "secret" prisons, foreign policy mishaps, bungled occupations, and wrecked economy will live on for far longer than any mystical "protection."'

Amen to that.

Truman was nearly universally reviled when he left office, but he has risen quite strongly in the estimation of historians and is now generally viewed as great or near-great. I don't know if Bush will rise that high, but he certainly will rise from his current status.

On the PDBs, they were nowhere near as specific as people like to claim.

Jchavs,

"And I highly doubt history will look kindly on a President who condoned torture, lied to the American people, destroyed the economy and gave us a debt we'll likely be paying off for generations."

How about F.D.R and Lincoln?

condoned torture (check); lied to the American people (check); destroyed the economy that took a decade to recover from (check); at least quadrupled the size of the national debt while conducting a war and economic stagnation (check)... at least Bush did NOT arrest American citizens because of their ethnicity (Japanese internment in W.W.II - F.D.R.) or suspend the freedom of the press (Lincoln)... a thing that these two great presidents did while in office.

Brainster: "On the PDBs, they were nowhere near as specific as people like to claim."

How much more specific do you want to get than: “BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE U.S.'--and that was just the TITLE of the PDF on Augus6, 2001

And now let's compare the reactions by the Clinton and Bush administrations to specific threats. This is according to the 9/11 commission.

“What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years,” Rice said.

The 9/11 Commission Report contradicts Rice’s claims. On December 4, 1998, for example, the Clinton administration received a President’s Daily Brief entitled “Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks.” Here’s how the Clinton administration reacted, according to the 9/11 Commission report:

The same day, [Counterterrorism Czar Richard] Clarke convened a meeting of his CSG [Counterterrorism Security Group] to discuss both the hijacking concern and the antiaircraft missile threat. To address the hijacking warning, the group agreed that New York airports should go to maximum security starting that weekend. They agreed to boost security at other East coast airports. The CIA agreed to distribute versions of the report to the FBI and FAA to pass to the New York Police Department and the airlines. The FAA issued a security directive on December 8, with specific requirements for more intensive air carrier screening of passengers and more oversight of the screening process, at all three New York area airports. [pg. 128-30]

On August 6, 2001, the Bush administration received a President’s Daily Brief entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike U.S.” Here’s how the Bush administration reacted, according to the 9/11 Commission report:

[President Bush] did not recall discussing the August 6 report with the Attorney General or whether Rice had done so.[p. 260]

We have found no indication of any further discussion before September 11 among the President and his top advisers of the possibility of a threat of an al Qaeda attack in the United States. DCI Tenet visited President Bush in Crawford, Texas, on August 17 and participated in the PDB briefings of the President between August 31 (after the President had returned to Washington) and September 10. But Tenet does not recall any discussions with the President of the domestic threat during this period. [p. 262]

Rice acknowledged that the 9/11 Commission report is the authoratative source on this debate: “I think this is not a very fruitful discussion. We’ve been through it. The 9/11 commission has turned over every rock and we know exactly what they said.”

I rest

for more got o http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/26/rice-clinto...

"Truman was nearly universally reviled when he left office, but he has risen quite strongly in the estimation of historians and is now generally viewed as great or near-great. I don't know if Bush will rise that high, but he certainly will rise from his current status."

Well he certainly couldn't fall from his current status, lol- so you are probably right. I actually think that he used the war for a power grab- power that he was too incompetent to handle -- and also used the terrorist threat to increase the partisan divide, and help his otherwise doomed reelection chances in '04..

Truman is often brought up when supporters discuss future assessments of the Bush presidency, but I find few similarities. There are no videos of Truman reading The Pet Goat during an attack, announcing the presence of WMD in Iraq or pronouncing mission accomplished. No images of him peering out of a jet flying over a devastated New Orleans or assuring his constituents that the economy was simply experiencing a bit of turbulence. Not to mention the images of Abu Ghraib. The truth of his presidency lies in images and clips that will be permanent part of US history. Even if one sets aside the list of national disasters that occurred on his watch, President Bush's tragic ineptitude reminds me of another President. Jimmy Carter. I seriously doubt that history will be kind to either of them.

Jchavs coments and acsparks "checks",

"And I highly doubt history will look kindly on a President who condoned torture ("check"), lied to the American people ("check"), destroyed the economy and gave us a debt we'll likely be paying off for generations ("check")"

acsparks: However, "at least Bush did NOT arrest American citizens because of their ethnicity (Japanese internment in W.W.II - F.D.R.) or suspend the freedom of the press (Lincoln)." Wow! those exceptions certainly makes Bush a great president (Although he "worse than interned" Afghans, Iraqis, etc. and although he suspended so many other freedoms, and the Constitution)

This certainly qualifies him for your prediction that," twenty years from now, Mr. Bush will be vindicated for his actions that kept his country and its citizens safe… even while they cheered as he moved out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue." You Betcha!

"condoned torture (check); lied to the American people (check); destroyed the economy that took a decade to recover from (check); at least quadrupled the size of the national debt while conducting a war and economic stagnation (check)... at least Bush did NOT arrest American citizens because of their ethnicity (Japanese internment in W.W.II - F.D.R.) or suspend the freedom of the press (Lincoln)... a thing that these two great presidents did while in office."

No Bush just suspended habeus corpus for anyone he accused of being a terrorist, conducted illegal wiretaps, trashed the Geneva Convention, pressured intelligence agencies to find a link between Iraq and 9/11, allowed his V.P. to claim he was neither part of the Executive OR Legislative Branch, and those are just the examples I can think of off the top of my head!

And pretty much everyone agrees that the Japanese internment camps were a bad idea (regardless of whether they kept us 'safe'). And I would bet most people would agree that Lincoln shouldn't have suspended the rights of the press. Presidents can make mistakes. George W. Bush has just made more of them, typically by ignoring the Constitution, and refuses to admit that they were mistakes. And claiming that he kept us 'safe' (which is a dubious claim given that a) he's not out of office, b) the numerous attacks against Americans abroad, c) we don't know the long-term effects on the efficacy of his policies while keeping the country safe) doesn't excuse the myriad of abuses of power that he has engaged in. And that will define his legacy. After all, as Benjamin Franklin said "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

In 20 years a hope I am still alive to counter any kudos. An American city WAS destroyed under Mr. Bush's administration. It was my hometown of New Orleans. It did not involve one terrorist, just an incompetent government not interested in mundane things like infrastructure and protecting the lives of American citizens. Hell is too good for this man. And yes I supported him before Katrina also.

"For me, the saddest part about the terrorist attacks of 9-11 is the long-term impact on the presidency of George W. Bush. "

For me, the saddest part of 9-11 was the friends, father in law and wife I lost that day.

I really cannot put GW Bush's legacy in the same category, nor should any person with a vestige of humanity.
Anyone who looks at 9-11 as merely a political situation is vile beyond words.

The legacy of George W. Bush also includes making political appointments whose job it was to undermine the purposes of the agencies they were supposed to manage. This has been documented in newspaper articles concerning the Department of the Interior, NASA, the EPA and OSHA. I think they've barely gotten started on showing how badly the Bush administration served the American people and these actions had nothing to do with 9/11.

@acspark

As our values have changed our standards have risen. Most of us have higher expectations for 21st century presidents than those of previous eras in no small part because we expect them to have learned the follies of their predecessors.

docorj2u - Don't blame Bush for the decades of neglect of the levees. Don't blame Bush for the criminally incompetent responses and lack of proper evacuation by New Orleans city officials and the state of Louisiana.

And above all, don't live in a terminally corrupt city built below sea-level in-between the Gulf of Mexico and Lake Pontchartrain. Your city was already a decaying, dying city living on strip joints, tourist rip-off spots, and a music scene that was more reputation than reality for many years. It was the Detroit of the South.

It hasn't been rebuilt not because the Federal Government doesn't care, but because business, local and national, along with the American people, as a whole, just don't care if it is.

Austin,
I hate to tell you (because I know it will disappoint you) but the city of New Orleans IS rebuilt from the bravery of the people from all over the world that refused to let it die. I blame Bush for the years of suffering that occurred after the levees broke because I lived it and watched the suffering of hundreds and hundreds of good Americans. But keep your altar to the man if that is the kind of person you find admirable. Just don't call yourself a patriot or a good American because you are not by any definition I ever understood.

If it weren't for the doctrine of American exceptionalism the George Bush would be tried for war crimes, and sent to jail where he belongs. His Presidency has been a disaster for the World. Accountability must be demanded.

Beginning with Prescott Bush and continuing down to George W, the documented damage inflicted upon the United States, its Constitution, and citizens by the Bush Crime Family is truly immeasurable.

doc - Really? What is the total population today vs. pre-Katrina? What is the tax revenue base today vs. pre-Katrina? What is the number of available hotel rooms, occupancy rates, and average room rate today vs. pre-Katrina? What is the total employment and unemployment numbers and rates today vs. pre-Katrina?

What, exactly, do you base your contention that New Orleans is rebuilding to anything close to what it was prior to Katrina? And what I said about it being a dying city with a declining infrastructure, tax base and population, along with rampant corruption and an erosion of the Bourbon Street and music scenes is sadly true.

I have visited NO at least 6 - 8 times pre-Katrina, and twice now post-Katrina. I do not hate NO; I used to love it. But its decay was obvious before Katrina, and the re-building, such as there is, is window dressing. It is sad, but true. The strategic need for the Port of New Orleans was gone years ago, and the downsides of NO outweigh the costs needed to fully rebuild.

Otherwise, as I said, businesses and people would be returning there in droves. And they are not.

Mr. Tony are you a functional human being? or are we reading the jargon of a bush lackey? Tell me how is it that 19 (I like that mystical number) US trained operatives (7 proven alive after identities were stolen) outwitted the multi billion dollar airforce in the most protected airspace for nearly two hours without one shot fired ( well we certainly know flt93 was shot down), most technologically advanced AF. Yet Cessna pilots who allegedly trained on simulators were able to perform precision military maneuvers with airliners on the spot. This totally boggles my mind. I wonder where I can get passports that survive fireballs, I thought they were made of paper, yet these hijackers had some type of miracle survival paper, I wonder how that happens? Why has 911 been swept under the rug and no one says boo?
What an absolute fraud, its so obvious. How could so many people be fooled and now we are supposed to believe in the divinity of bush and his incredibly criminal family whose history makes the histories of Stalin and Hitler pale in comparison.

B*sh kept us safe??? With his pet project war against Iraq (a country that had NO connection to 9/11 and NO weapons of mass destruction), B*sh is responsible for more American deaths – and more innocent civilian deaths – than Osama bin Laden. It was a war based on lies, fought solely for corporate profit. It killed thousands of U.S, troops and left tens of thousands more horribly injured. It caused incredible human suffering.

B*sh is a war criminal and must be sent to The Hague to face justice.

"The legacy of George W. Bush also includes making political appointments whose job it was to undermine the purposes of the agencies they were supposed to manage. This has been documented in newspaper articles concerning the Department of the Interior, NASA, the EPA and OSHA. I think they've barely gotten started on showing how badly the Bush administration served the American people and these actions had nothing to do with 9/11."
Jim--
I have to agree with this entirely- and it is an excellent point.

I was just reading today about how a Bush political appointee at OSHA totally undermined the agency when an urgent warning came in about dental techs being exposed to a carcinogen- berillyeum in the workplace. The appointee had been pressured from lobbyists representing the source of the carcinogen-- and despite the entire agency's protest, was able to derail it from taking action. This was in 2001--- and nothing has been done about it to this day.

How would you like to be one of those dental techs???

This fetishization of keeping us "safe", of preventing attacks on American soil, and the attendant credit given to the Bush administration for its "success" has bothered me for some time. I have had a difficult time articulating this, in part because I think it would take a book length exposition. But Richard Wolffe said something on Meet the Press on Dec 28, 2008 that is brief and comes close: "You can't take America's national security across oceans to other continents and then only care about its impact on American soil. It's grossly irresponsible." There are a thousand ways to elaborate on this for those who cannot see it. But let's try only this one: arguing the American soil point, without a detailed and honest accounting of the costs of the policies pursued ostensibly in support of this end, discounts the responsibility Bush had as Commander in Chief to those under his command and in some respects dishonors those who have served. It is the special hell of military commanders (at least those with a conscience) to be responsible for the safety of those under their command, responsible for those whom they choose to place in harm's way. Those thousands of military personnel and military contractors who have died, and the tens or hundreds of thousands who have been wounded both physically and psychologically were not kept safe by their commander in chief, and they were us. Those parents and brothers and sisters and children who spent weeks and months in fear for the lives of their loved ones, only to have the worst happen, know terror and grief every bit as palpable as a 9/11 survivor, and they were us. Thus, as an absolute minimum, I would expect those who wish to honestly argue the "safety on American soil" point for the Bush administration to argue it explicitly imbedded in the context of the costs in lives, blood, and tears of the armed forces Bush commanded. In that context I find the account, like so many others in these waning days of 2008, bankrupt and have a difficult time imagining that history will somehow find otherwise.

Austin,
The metro area of New Orleans is now 87% of what it was pre-Katrina and it is still growing as rents decrease as more homes are restored. As to the business culture of NOLA, check out this link:
http://www.neworleanscitybusiness.com/viewStory...
I find it interesting what you consider important in a city is money. New Orleans was never about money (except when the Americans first entered the city and tried their best to put their values to it.) New Orleans culture is about enjoying and loving family and community.. That is why it survived when many communities would have died.
http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2008/12/this...
It is a very special place. Next trip try to get off the tourist trap of Bourbon Street and see the real New Orleans (including the still devastated areas). You will meet the most resilient people in the world. They have been annealed by pain and hardship, but all are there because they know the value of their home because it was very nearly lost to them. I once was sure I was an American, now I know I am a New Orleanian. The day George Bush is out of office maybe I can begin to be an American again. Maybe not. We will see. What gives me hope are the wonderful volunteers that have come to our aid. (Watch the video.)
http://www.wwltv.com/local/stories/wwl122408cbv...
What gives me pause are "Americans" that tell suffering people they and their city are cesspools and don't deserve to live. As a matter of fact, New Orleans and her people are BEAUTIFUL and it is sad that some people in this country are too ignorant, racist, or judgemental (aka SNL church lady) to see it. I have a suggestion for you. Go see "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button". You will see New Orleans for what it is and get a good message about living a good life at the same time.

Austin,
The New Orleans City Business link isn't working for me, Here is what it says.

UNO: New Orleans economy bucks national recession
ADVERTISEMENT
The New Orleans metro area added 11,700 jobs in 2008 and will see 7,900 more positions added over the next two years, according to a University of New Orleans economic forecast.

Report author Janet Speyer said the city’s recovery from Hurricane Katrina will allow the area to weather the economic downturn that is expected to saddle the rest of the country. And since New Orleans stayed largely free of the risky mortgages burdening other real estate markets, our banking sector remains relatively robust, she said.

Construction, not surprisingly, was the strength of New Orleans’ job market, growing 6.2 percent over the year while the rest of the country saw a 5.9 percent decline in the sector.

New Orleans added 2,000 construction jobs in 2008; 1,500 in the hotel industry; 1,500 in food and beverage services; 1,100 in state government jobs, including public hospital workers and teachers; 800 in the professional/technical sector; and 800 in private hospitals.

New Orleans’ economy “is still on an upward path,” according to UNO, with population and jobs still moving upward. The recovery pressure is unlikely to stop in the near future, but its pace will slow, the report says.

If you read the actual August 6, 2001 PDB rather than someone's spin on it, you'll find that the bulk of the info was historical in nature. It read in part that the CIA had been unable to confirm the more sensational plots, such as a hijacking plot that was intended to gain the release of the blind sheikh. The only new bits were a mention that the FBI was working on 70 different reports of Al Qaeda activity.

The bit about "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside US? Came from TV interviews that Bin Laden had given in 1998; there was nothing new about this and indeed readers of Time Magazine got that scoop three years before 9-11.

And if you want to congratulate the Clinton administration on its diligence, you have to acknowledge that they did not secure the cockpit doors after hearing of the Bojinka plot, which included a plan to crash airplanes into buildings. You have to acknowledge that all of the hijacker pilots entered the country while Clinton was in office. And you have to acknowledge that they did not stop the Cole operation or the embassy bombings.

"And if you want to congratulate the Clinton administration on its diligence, you have to acknowledge that they did not secure the cockpit doors after hearing of the Bojinka plot, which included a plan to crash airplanes into buildings. You have to acknowledge that all of the hijacker pilots entered the country while Clinton was in office. And you have to acknowledge that they did not stop the Cole operation or the embassy bombings."

At least they managed to keep us respected in the world (and thus not creating a rallying point for terrorists) and have a thriving economy. Yes, Clinton bears some responsibility for the Cole and embassy bombings. But George W. Bush bears responsibility for all attacks on our embassies and military personel in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as responsibility for doubling the national debt and the tanking economy. And he aslo didn't secure the cockpit doors. Nor did the FBI under Bush's watch investigate intelligence about people learning to fly commercial planes but not want to land (Colleen Rowley was a whistleblower about that).

Neither President was perfect but Clinton at least did some things well.

The level of moral bankruptcy and ideologically driven myopia in this piece is just astounding. Bush's legacy is irrefutable, despite the wave of phony testimonials by the people you'd expect - those who like Rice, Rove, et al. were complicit or active campaigners in one disastrous policy decision after another. I wish people like Tony Campbell would take a good, long look in the mirror and ask themselves why exactly they believe this kind of nonsense.

I forgot to add another thing I'm grateful for, and glad Bush prevented with diligent policy: we weren't struck by a giant meteorite during 8 years of the Bush administration. That's a plus.