The same people who misinterpreted and cherry picked intelligence about Iraq are handling the intelligence and its analysis in terrorism. The same people who have so badly mismanaged the Iraq invasion are managing anti terrorism measures.
Yes there is a lot of overt airline security activity going on. There is also a lot of activity going on in Iraq. It is questionable, I think, whether or not any of that activity is directed toward a useful end.
Based on the performance in antiterrorism the people are being asked to keep in place the same Congress that has so miserably failed in its oversight of the conduct of national affairs.
And to some extent it seems to be working. Go firgure.
Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq’s Green Zone by Rajiv Chandrasekaran is hot off the press with details about mismanagement and appointment of “true believers” to tasks they are unprepared for. Chandrasekaran said on Hardcopy Wednesday September 20, that it is as if Bush had appointed 100 Michael Browns. ('m paraphrasing.)
The reiviews of the book look good. As soon as I finish Conservatives Without Consicience I might buy it. Although, reading stuff like that is really frustrating. The complaisant congress keeps voting appropriations without ever asking what is being done with the money and there isn’t a damned thing I can do about it. I live in a congressional district that is so safely Republican that my vote is meaningless - but I still go in and after voting say, “There, take that you son-of-a-bitch.”.
I really have trouble understanding why people will believe that those who have thoroughly screwed up in Iraq will be so great at antiterrorism.
Simple. How many al Qaeda terror strikes have we had in the US since 9/11/01? This might provide some insight, too. Note the answers to the question about the most significant event in people’s lifetime.
Terrorist attacks are a relatively rare (except in Iraq) so I really can’t see extended periods between attacks in any one country as good evidence that antiterrorism methods are successful.
And your statistical citations merely state a fact about opinions. That doesn’t explain why people think that way. I’ve also heard people, some of them in high office, say that the 9/11 attacks were the wors disaster in US history, thus relegating the Civil War to no better than second.
Whether the Iraq war is considered as the most significant in a lifetime doesn’t mean it isn’t significant, and it is screwed up. I guess people have to be hit over the head to see the disconnect between the lack of competence in Iraq and their faith that there is, or will be, competence in antiterrorism. Maybe we’ll get the same skill in antiterrorism as in the responce to hurricane Katrina.
I agree, but that’s what lots of people are going to gauge success by. As is often quoted, how many people would have thought back on 9/12/01 that we wouldn’t have another attack on US soil for the next 5 years? Not many. I think people came to expect more frequent attacks, and they give Bush and the Republicans credit for having prevented them-- whether that credit is deserved or not is hard to tell.
I think it gives some insight. Iraq is in the news every day, but people are still shaped in the opinions more by what happened on 9/11/01.
Well, being hit over the head is what hasn’t happened, so maybe you’re right.
Anyway, I’m not saying I agree with those folks, but I don’t find it surpriseing that many people do think that way. How many Americans really take the effort to understand things like we do around here?
Not many. And was it Jefferson who said something along the lines of those who expect to have successful self-government and an uneducated public are kidding themselves?
Maybe the opposition party and the serious media should start pointig out some realities instead of treating the political process like a sporting match. “Who’s ahead today and how does the latest bombing and killing in Iraq affect the outcome in the 3rd congressional district in Mississippi” sort of stuff.
And if the media really wanted to inform people, O’Reilly and Novak would have been shown the door long, long ago.
By that stroke o’ brilliance, we should immediately reinstate then Clinton Administration ASAP, since they went through eight years with zero al Qaeda terror strikes in the US. Clinton (0) < GW Bush (1), after all.
Of course even if you had been right, it would be meaningless. There is no mechanism for “reinstating the Clinton Adminstration”. We might as well seek to resurrect George Washington from the dead.
Given that Clinton (6 killed) < GWBush (3,000+ killed), I think that’s still a good argument for putting the White House back into Bill’s vastly more competent hands.
…either of whom would be a better President than the one we’ve got now. And that’s including Washington’s current non-vital status.
Ah, the moving goalpost. Well, you go ahead and start the effort to get WJC back in the Whitehouse. Good luck with that one.
Either of which is completely besides the point, as has already been addressed.
You know, I’m absolutely no fan of Bush and don’t derive any pleasure from the fact that he polls better than the Democrats on this issue. Well, that’s not completely true. The fact that it drives you crazy does make it seem just a tiny bit OK.
Actually, there hardly needs to be another attack. As a result of the first one our leaders are setting the example in chasing our tails and combatting imaginary assaults all at huge cost. In addition we have started an unecessary war and thereby seem to have alienated a substantial fraction of the worlds population.
After watching the reaction to 9/11 in the first couple of weeks I instantly thought of the Twilight Zone episode that Kieth Olberman mentioned recently.
Some aliens land at night near a town and start playing tricks with the electricity. Lights flash on and off, cars won’t start or start mysteriously. It isn’t long before fear drives the town citizens to start blaming each other and looking for scapegoats. The last scene shows a couple of aliens watching the town from a distance. There is a tremendous din as the populace runs riot attacking each other out of fear. It looks like it is possible to be literally be scared to death.
…yet you shamelessly trot out the “We’ve had no terrorist attacks inside the US since 9/11” excuse, straight out of the Republicans’ talking points handbook. Never mind the growing number of terrorist attacks worldwide during Bush’s tenure, never mind the growing anti-American sentiment worldwide, never mind the resurgence of the Taliban, never mind the continued non-capture of Osama Bin Laden – all praise George, because 9/11 only happened once! :rolleyes:
Oh, please. It’s a fact, whether it’s from anyone’s “talking points” or not. Do you dispture it?
Look. Do you think many Americans worry about terror strikes in Bali? The fact is the current polls show that Americans trust the Republicans more than the Democrats on the issue of protection from terrorism. What’s your explanation for that? I never said the reasons were rational or that I agree with them.
You’re problem is that you simply cannot fathom that some people will hold beliefs different from what you hold.
And, believe it or not, that is an administration boast and one that people seems to accept. Namely, that one function of the military is to provide American targets in an otherwise unecessary war. That isn’t exactly what they say when they say, “We’re fightem terrorists there so we don’t have to fight them here.” but, to me, that’s what such a claim boils down to.
I don’t think many Americans worried about Saddam’s abuse of the Iraqis either. Yet people will chant the mantra, “He abused his own people.” as a reason to get rid of Saddam. I know that is supposedly a reason why he was a danger to ]our security but I simply don’t understand it…