Monday, December 8, 2008


Using the logic of Ms Noonan can we then say that every administration before Clinton protected our interest since we were not attacked on our soil ?? Actions that we have taken as a nation from the very beginning led up to at some point our shores being attacked.

We blockaded Japan during there time of war with China, this led to the attack on Pearl Harbor, many say our intervention into Europe was the reasoning behind 9/11, along with our meddling in the Middle east. I don't know for sure but then again I don't blame Bush for 9/11, I don't blame Carter for the Shaw of Iran, Reagan for the marine barracks bombing in Lebanon and the list can grow. However at the end of the day can we really say our troops in Iraq are keeping us safe ?? Was Iraq ever a threat to our shores or just there neighbors borders ?? I believe someone in government was over zealous and chose to make Iraq a focal point of this so called War on Terrorism. Don't forget that 14 out of 19 hijackers were Saudi Arabian, this is NOT by accident. The first bomber loaded up should have been scrambled for that nation.

In the coming elections we will need a strong President one that will state that any act of aggression on an American is an act of aggression on American soil, this will result in a swift but calculated payback.

If we are not attacked in the next coming four years I wonder will Barack Obama get the credit or will they once again pat the back of George W. Bush even though he will be long gone at that point. Once Obama is inaugurated we will still have boots on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq, along with every other nation that had them before 9/11. If Bush deserves the credit for no attacks since 9/11 then doesn't the Clinton administration deserve the blame for allowing them to fester in this manner //

"In the seven years since 9/11, there were no further attacks on American soil. This is an argument that's been around for a while but is newly re-emerging as the final argument for [President] Bush: the one big thing he had to do after 9/11, the single thing he absolutely had to do, was keep it from happening again. And so far he has. It is unknown, and perhaps can't be known, whether this was fully due to the government's efforts, or the luck of the draw, or a combination of luck and effort. And it not only can't be fully known by the public, it can hardly be fully known by the players at all levels of government. They can't know, for instance, of a potential terrorist cell that didn't come together because of their efforts. But the meme will likely linger. There's a rough justice with the American people. If a president presides over prosperity, whether he had anything to do with it or not, he gets the credit. If he has a recession, he gets the blame. The same with war, and terrorist attacks. We have not been attacked since 9/11. Someone -- someones -- did something right." --columnist Peggy Noonan

No comments: