MSNBC, right now: Does Bush deserve credit for no attacks since 9/11?

[Human Torch]

THAT'S what this day is about.

Giving thanks to the Messiah.

MSNBC talking heads are scrambling about, trying to come up with numbers that PROVE, brothers and sisters, that we have been kept SAFE by Little Baby Jesus Bush.

Makes...me...fucking...ILL.

:grr:

[AX10]

1. I fully expect the pundits to polticize this day.

I will NEVER SUPPORT BUSH IN ANY MANNER!

[ColonelTom]

2. GREAT President, or the GREATEST President?

:sarcasm: :grr:

[neoblues]

4. Methinks: Grate President...

he's surely grating on my last nerves.

[ariellyn]

26. Eight years between WTC '93 and WTC '01--So did Clinton keep us safer?

Safer than Bush? I would say so by this standard. And before '93, how long before an attack? Keeping with this thinking means every president before Bush and Clinton was even more successful at keeping us "safe."

But, in reality, (and we know these people aren't reality-based)--you cannot prove a negative. Just because it didn't happen doesn't mean it's because Bush stopped it from happening. One of the things they said about OBL at the outset was that he is a very patient man. He bides his time and will strike at the most unsuspecting time. Who can forget the glorious day that was 9/11/01? Not a cloud in the sky anywhere and BOOM!

This claim is a bunch of hooey is the point I'm struggling to make here.

[Chico Man]

3. Anthrax Attacks?

Unsolved?

[electropop]

9. Osama Bin Forgotten

Osama Bin busy too. He's orchestrated dozens of attacks worldwide since 9/11. He's busy plotting the next big one for US.

[KurtNYC]

20. DC snipers too - apparently terrorist attacks don't count to MSNBC

as long as they are going to ignore reality with their poll question they should just ask:

"Does Bush deserve credit for low gas prices, full employment, expansion of the middle class, ending the health care crisis, no hurricanes since 2000, global cooling, and curing AIDS?"

[Ezlivin]

21. ANTHRAX ATTACKS - ANTHRAX ATTACKS

I agree with you. Perhaps we need to shout it.

Discussed over at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=113377&mesg_id=113377

[MrModerate]

5. Depends on who "WE" is . . .

I spend a fair amount of time in London, and I'll tell you, THEY don't feel safer, and they don't think that George Bush has prevented much of anything -- except making a coherent and successful defense against terrorists possible.

Small-minded chauvinism -- if the terror attack isn't close enough so Georgie can smell the seared flesh, then "We're" protected.

[Crazy Dave]

What? The unsolved anthrax mails, The DC Sniper....

...weren't considered attacks?

[meegbear]

6. I think Chester A. Arthur deserves credit ...

during his presidency from 1881 to 1885, the United States did not have any terrorist attacks.

Good Job Chester :thumbsup:

[gully]

7. If Clinton deserves credit for the eight years Al Q did not strike.

eom

[jacklambert]

17. actually...

al Qaeda attacked the Khobar Towers, the Kenyan and Tanzanian embassies (considered US territories) and blew a hole in the side of the USS Kohl. But, besides that, you are right.

[gully]

18. Actually, terrorism is up around the world since we invaded Iraq.

Are you going to calculate every act of so called "terrorism" against our troops and around the world into the Bush "safety" record?

I thought we were talking about "the homeland." If not, I'd be glad to contrast Clinton V. Bush.

[jacklambert]

24. terrorism is up

There is no question that terrorism is up since the start of the Iraq War. It seems everyday there is a new car bombing or suicide bombing in the "Civil War" going on in Baghdad.

[gully]

25. So is Bush responsible for escalating terrorism around the world?

??????

After all, Bush calls everyone who wants us out of Iraq a "terrorist." He also calls those who disagree with him, "terrorist sympathizers" so, Bush has increased terrorism dramatically along with sympathy for terrorists.

[Solly Mack]

8. How long did America go without an attack prior to 1993?

Do Presidents get credit for that?

How long prior to 1941? Do Presidents get credit for that?

America was never safe from attack(and it never will be)...the only thing that changes is the probability of an attack

And Bush has done nothing but increase America's probability factor.

We've never been attacked from space...do we credit NASA with that?

[whiterabbit76]

10. Deserve Credit???

I hope that there is a hell so that man may rot in it.

[William769]

11. One thing makes me more sick than Bush

But every time I post it, it gets deleted.

[neoblues]

12. Maybe it's an unspoken agreement...

Bush to Bin Laden: "Hey, if we, uh, sort of don't bother you, heh, heh, maybe you all could lay off attacking us--at least until there's a different President or my poll numbers go through the toilet? So whaddya say Osama, good buddy?" (if you know what I mean, wink, wink, nod, nod)(nudge, nudge)

(hopefully, that was all sarcasm...)

[gratuitous]

13. If so, then he deserves blame for the last attack he let happen

If he can stop subsequent attacks, then it stands to reason he could have prevented previous attacks.

[InternalDialogue]

14. He also deserves credit for

- no alien invasions since 9/11
- lack of attacks from flesh-eating robots after 9/11
- preventing all-out assault from rabid pandas following 9/11
- defeating global plot by murderous sea urchins since 9/11
- continued orbit of sun by Earth after 9/11

Any other president would have let happen at least two of the five.

[valerief]

15. Conversely, does Bush deserve blame for the attack of 9-11? n/t

[welshTerrier2]

16. no hurricane has hit New Orleans since Katrina ...

he's doing a heckuva job ...

[Supersedeas]

19. Except for the worst breach of National Security on US soil, isn't * great

[Strawman]

22. This is what we're up against

And the bullshit never stops no matter how immoral and incompetent this guy is. That's why the plain truth about bullshit like Iraq and 9/11, Iraqi WMD, etc. etc. has taken so long to get through to the majority. This unending narrative of complete and total bullshit.

[AtomicKitten]

23. very well

but only if Clinton gets credit for no attacks within our borders from 2/26/93 to 1/20/01.

[Imagevision]

27. Not getting hit in 5 years proves nothing - absolutely zilch! - 1993 thru

2001=8 years before terrorists came back and successfully hit again, hit us worse then 1993 -- until at the minimum, until the US. surpass 8 years can we begin to feel like something has been accomplished.

We are more safer now compared to September 10th 2001...