Yesterday, the usual suspects chimed in with the expected "say what you want about Bush, but he did keep us safe since 9/11." Bush himself added about his "tough" decisions, "there can be little debate about the results. America has gone more than seven years without another terrorist attack on our soil.”
This is a fairly important debate for the country to have. If it is accepted that Bush "kept us safe," then it's a clear acceptance of his methods: what he would call "taking the fight to terrorists" with our military, using torture, violating civil rights & privacy, generally refusing to talk to nations hostile to us, letting our relationships with important allies deteriorate, etc. It is also an endorsement of the Bush doctrine (in what respect, Charlie?) & of our actions in Iraq.
I, and I suppose many, would argue that Bush has made us much less safe. Intel has repeatedly concluded that AQ is just as strong now as they were in 2001, and just as well-positioned to attack the West. It has described Iraq as a "cause celebre" for terrorist recruitment around the globe. Iran has been empowered in the region, and our options for dealing with a stronger Iran are diminished. What I would consider important aspects of what is called the WOT - like border security & security at nuclear plants - has been ignored. We have not captured or killed OBL. The biggest threat to America will likely come from a cell in this hemisphere, so the argument that "we're fighting them there so we don't have to on the streets here" rings hollow.
Given the infrequency of terrorist attacks on American soil throughout history, it's pretty clear to me that Bush taking credit for keeping us safe is kind of a like a rooster taking credit for the sunrise. Still, I'm sure it's a debate that will go on for ages, since it's all the Bushies have left.
This is a fairly important debate for the country to have. If it is accepted that Bush "kept us safe," then it's a clear acceptance of his methods: what he would call "taking the fight to terrorists" with our military, using torture, violating civil rights & privacy, generally refusing to talk to nations hostile to us, letting our relationships with important allies deteriorate, etc. It is also an endorsement of the Bush doctrine (in what respect, Charlie?) & of our actions in Iraq.
I, and I suppose many, would argue that Bush has made us much less safe. Intel has repeatedly concluded that AQ is just as strong now as they were in 2001, and just as well-positioned to attack the West. It has described Iraq as a "cause celebre" for terrorist recruitment around the globe. Iran has been empowered in the region, and our options for dealing with a stronger Iran are diminished. What I would consider important aspects of what is called the WOT - like border security & security at nuclear plants - has been ignored. We have not captured or killed OBL. The biggest threat to America will likely come from a cell in this hemisphere, so the argument that "we're fighting them there so we don't have to on the streets here" rings hollow.
Given the infrequency of terrorist attacks on American soil throughout history, it's pretty clear to me that Bush taking credit for keeping us safe is kind of a like a rooster taking credit for the sunrise. Still, I'm sure it's a debate that will go on for ages, since it's all the Bushies have left.
