Video: We haven’t been attacked because AQ wasn’t in the mood
posted at 12:55 pm on January 13, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
As George Bush leaves office, he can claim that he kept our country safe from attack for the past seven years. In the weeks following 9/11, we fully expected al-Qaeda to attack the US as often as possible, a threat which Bush and his team took very seriously, and defused. Or did they? Ron Suskind attempted to claim last night on Hardball that AQ didn’t really want to attack us over that period (via Radio Vice Online):
This demonstrates how difficult proving a negative can be. Had Winston Churchill become Prime Minister in the mid-1930s and attacked Hitler when he violated treaties and sent the Wehrmacht into the Rhineland, he would have been known in history as a warmonger, even if Churchill had succeeded in ending Hitler’s career. If Bush had known of the AQ attack on 9/11 ahead of time and begun rounding up suspects, he would have been castigated as a fascist (and he was afterward by certain lunatic parts of the body politic, anyway – as was Churchill, until Hitler attacked the USSR). Without Poland in 1939 and the actual attack of 9/11, preventive measures look either disproportionate or completely unnecessary.
Suskind’s argument makes little sense. He says that Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri simply didn’t want to attack the US, despite years of propaganda threatening to do just that. Let’s work on Suskind’s premise for the moment. If AQ didn’t have to worry about wiretaps, counterterrorist efforts, and enhanced security in the US, would Suskind argue that AQ would simply have passed on the opportunity to attack The Great Satan, especially when we spent the last few years destroying their network in Iraq? If they weren’t motivated to launch an attack in the US, isn’t it just possible that their lack of motivation came from the likelihood of failure under this adminstration?
We’ve been kept safe from attack from a vicious enemy for the last seven years, which seemed almost impossible in late September of 2001. That’s an accomplishment in which Bush can take considerable pride, no matter what absurdities appear on MS-NBC. And as for that argument not being “coherent”, would Suskind believe that a successful large-scale terrorist attack in the US would not have been an indication of failure?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Joe the plumber hasn’t got a clue.. ohh , excuse me, wrong thread.
the_nile on January 13, 2009 at 12:58 PM
My wife turned on MSNBC last night; I never watched it before. Maddow was on, I couldn’t believe the moronic content of that show.
And I honestly thought that people calling MSNBC a leftist propaganda outlet was hyperbole, until I actually watched the show.
Stunning.
lorien1973 on January 13, 2009 at 12:58 PM
Right. Could it be they have been on the defensive for 8 years? But get ready for that to “change”.
Static on January 13, 2009 at 12:59 PM
Suskind is saying what every defeated terrorist says: “Failing was part of our larger plan.”
RBMN on January 13, 2009 at 1:00 PM
They haven’t attacked because they have a headache? Interesting idea. Oh, wait, wrong lame excuse.
lol. Someone’s gotta pick up on the Hamas version of the “we’re really winning even though it’s painfully clear that we’re losing.”
mjk on January 13, 2009 at 1:04 PM
We haven’t been attacked because AQ wasn’t in the mood
I suppose getting your ass kicked tends to change your mood somewhat.
Mr. D on January 13, 2009 at 1:05 PM
So, the MSM is tanking because they don’t really want to succeed.
Christien on January 13, 2009 at 1:06 PM
Time will tell.
Vashta.Nerada on January 13, 2009 at 1:07 PM
As the saying goes, “Figures don’t lie, but liars do Figure…!” I will call this guy to sell my used car for me….
DL13 on January 13, 2009 at 1:07 PM
What a strange way of arguing a point…maybe they didn’t attack because there was no opportunity…and when seeking an opportunity, that door was closed?
As stated, “We have to be right 100% of the time, they only have to be right once”. So far we are right 100%, and I think history will look back and say what an incredible job Bush did…almost inconceivable what he did.
And as messy as the war was, that was one of the reasons…I think history will show the valiant effort of our military, the lives they sacrificed, saved many more lives over here.
Twenty years from now, Bush will be hailed as a great leader, at a time where events were taking place and attempting to take place that he will only know by living out the next 20 years, and looking back.
right2bright on January 13, 2009 at 1:07 PM
I wonder what color the sky is in Suskind’s world.
rbj on January 13, 2009 at 1:07 PM
So AQ was in more of a mood to attack the US when Bill Clinton (who barely lifted a finger against them) was president than when Bush (who attacked at every opportunity) was?
That actually makes sense. I know I’d be more inclined to punch Richard Simmons than Chuck Norris.
DamnCat on January 13, 2009 at 1:08 PM
It’s like Joe “I love the Iranian Mullaocracy and welcome are new Muslim overlords” Klein, and his continued insistence that Sadr was “winning” in Iraq last year/
Illinidiva on January 13, 2009 at 1:08 PM
“I suppose getting your ass kicked tends to change your mood somewhat.”
So, now that our AQ ass-kicker will retire – how long before
AQ get’s in the mood again? Now that it will be clear that the ONE
will not do anything because of his leftist muzzle?
izoneguy on January 13, 2009 at 1:10 PM
Maybe Suskind’s projecting from his love life?
Christien on January 13, 2009 at 1:10 PM
Arrogance…it is what killed the MSM.
d1carter on January 13, 2009 at 1:10 PM
“Not coherent.” He said it all at the end — about himself.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on January 13, 2009 at 1:12 PM
You have a wife?
Esthier on January 13, 2009 at 1:12 PM
Gosh are the truthers back? It’s shear insanity to think Al Quiada would not attack if given the opportunity. Only GWB has saves us fron another horror.
kanda on January 13, 2009 at 1:12 PM
I was wondering the same thing.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on January 13, 2009 at 1:13 PM
Suskind’s assertion is as vacuous as the chest-thumping claim that “Bush kept us safe”.
Have certain policies established an environment that makes it that much harder for terrorists to operate without fear of detection? – Yes.
Can we say that the absence of an attack is purely a result of those policies? – No.
Smuggling/amassing the kinds of weapons needed to do considerable damage is a real challenge. Certainly our borders are porous enough, but the resources required, and the coordination needed over such a global network, would seem to make an Oklahoma-style bombing not worth the cost – especially when you contrast it with the inevitable retaliatory strike the US would deliver.
The most shocking terrorist attack recently has been the Mumbai shootings. Thankfully, we don’t need wiretaps and intrusive (and expensive) DHS protocols or color-charts to deal with that – we’ve got the 2nd Amendment, and they know it….in fact, they’d be elevating Americans to hero status if they blew away some jihadi raghead….bit of PR failure from A’s perspective.
AQ need to deliver a blow of similar of greater magnitude than 9/11 for the benefits to outweigh the costs. Given that the only reason they succeeded then was due to catching us with our pants down – new security measures have eliminated the possibility of a rerun – what are they left with?
LimeyGeek on January 13, 2009 at 1:14 PM
Jack Bauer won’t take the news well.
Christien on January 13, 2009 at 1:15 PM
Getting one’s a** kicked tends to cause those.
baldilocks on January 13, 2009 at 1:16 PM
Great minds…
baldilocks on January 13, 2009 at 1:16 PM
Not in the mood? What would Dennis Prager say?
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on January 13, 2009 at 1:16 PM
I must really weird people out on here, huh? LOL
I’m a catch, can’t ya tell!
lorien1973 on January 13, 2009 at 1:17 PM
I think the comparison of Churchill and Bush 43 is a good one.
Basically, with Bush 43 we are seeing what WWII would have looked like if the British and French had been more aggressive in combating the early rise of fascism.
Of course an attack on Germany in 36 would have been *much* bloodier then the WoT has been.
As for AQ not wanting to attack American interests, oh come on. Will leftists truly say *anything* if it advances their partisan interests? Apparently. Why doesn’t Mr Suskind try going to Pakistan and ask Al Qaeda for a private interview? I’m sure they would show him exactly what they would like to do to Americans given the option.
18-1 on January 13, 2009 at 1:17 PM
Let’s face it…being dead just makes you plain lazy. You don’t want to get up to do anything. Death also causes a change in your future. What you planned to do tomorrow will probably never get done. If it wasn’t for that Hellfire rocket I would have accomplished alot more.
sdd on January 13, 2009 at 1:17 PM
So they weren’t in the mood? Then explain al-Queda in Iraq. Explain why terrorists didn’t take the last 7 years off in other parts of the world(Madrid, Mumbai, etc.).
On second thought, don’t bother explaining. It’s pretty obvious what’s going on here. The one accomplishment by Bush that no one can question(we haven’t been hit since 9/11) is too much for the drive-bys and leftwing nutz to concede.
Doughboy on January 13, 2009 at 1:18 PM
Hey Ron, no worries, Change. She’s a comin.
JeffinOrlando on January 13, 2009 at 1:19 PM
I had the same reasoning as a young man in high school; I refused to punch the 6’6″ nose tackle of the football team.
Seemed like common sense at the time, now I found out I just didn’t feel like doing it.
Bishop on January 13, 2009 at 1:19 PM
Oh yeah…
That’s what she said!
lorien1973 on January 13, 2009 at 1:20 PM
No comment. :)
Esthier on January 13, 2009 at 1:20 PM
Well, you would never have been able to wash the blood out of your lambskin mittens.
LimeyGeek on January 13, 2009 at 1:21 PM
Hey, Richard Simmons can give you a nasty pinch!
stonemeister on January 13, 2009 at 1:21 PM
True, true.
MJK’s ability to tell a sex joke = Poor.
mjk on January 13, 2009 at 1:22 PM
Maybe if Great Leader blows in Al Qaeda’s ear, they’ll get in the mood.
He can whisper “Booooosh =’s the joooooooooos”.
Al Qaeda will get all moist in the Burka and what happens next will not be suitable for younger viewers.
NoDonkey on January 13, 2009 at 1:22 PM
Somebody doesn’t seem to understand the jihad to establish the Global Caliphate. And he’s a liberal. Whodathunkit?
trubble on January 13, 2009 at 1:22 PM
Nonsense. An attack after 9/11 would have been of great benefit to them because the U.S. would have been on the alert for such an attack (not the case with 9/11) so even if the damage in lives and property were not as great, the propaganda value would have been as great or greater. They would have shown that the Great Satan was incapable of stopping their plans even when put on notice.
PackerBronco on January 13, 2009 at 1:22 PM
No….I’d punch Norris….knowing that I’d be a legend for the remaining 0.003729 seconds of my life ;)
LimeyGeek on January 13, 2009 at 1:23 PM
I’m not interested in kicking this back-and-forth because, quite frankly, there’s no way to know conclusively what AQ’s cost/benefit equation is.
Either suggestion can be offered as plausible.
LimeyGeek on January 13, 2009 at 1:25 PM
Ed,
It’s easy to label this claim ridiculous, but when you look at the evidence it’s really not.
Suskin, in his book the 1% Doctrine cites White House and intelligence officials concerning a canceled subway attack in New York. This was not an attack we prevented, but an attack that al Qaeda called off.
this is what Bush had to say about it:
“I mean, this is bad enough. What does calling this off say about what else they’re planning?” Mr Bush asked, according to Suskind. “What could be the bigger operation Zawahiri didn’t want to mess up?”
al qaeda has always been patient with its attacks. The 9/11 attacks were first proposed in ’95 or ’96. The speculation is that they want the next attack to be bigger than 9/11, and this is reflected in their rhetoric when they speak of another attack on the US.
Now, I’m not saying the Bush administration and — more specifically — the intelligence community has not a good job in protecting us, but I think it would be foolish to believe that we’re in control of the situation and that the system we have in place is the sole reason we have not been attacked since 9/11.
The evidence shows that al qaeda had a large scale attack ready to pull off, but they canceled for some reason. Many fear it was because it was not a big enough attack.
Tom_Shipley on January 13, 2009 at 1:25 PM
This guy Suskind claims to have all this inside knowledge, but he never can back it up w/ names or otherwise. He really is unreal. This is just more evidence of BDS, and liberal talking heads and “journalists” not allowing themselves to acknowledge even one moment of success from the last 8 years. Plus CM is a total joke, clown, Blathering Idiot, Ninkumpoop and general jester.
Tom66 on January 13, 2009 at 1:26 PM
No….I’d punch Norris….knowing that I’d be a legend for the remaining 0.003729 seconds of my life ;)
Norris can kill you just by staring at you.
Bishop on January 13, 2009 at 1:26 PM
Get a load of Suskind, complaining about the help.
Christien on January 13, 2009 at 1:26 PM
So, AQ attacks this country five times while Clinton was (alledgedly) CIC, then they attack us once while GWB is CIC, then promptly get their illiterate, camel-washing asses kicked, but the reason they stopped attacking us was because they were just not interested.
Right.
Suskind, you are nothing but a useful idiot, and a profoundly stupid one, at that.
I guess once PEBO becomes POTUS and we start getting hit again, this moron is going to pop up on Matthew’s stupid show and tell us all that AQ has returned from its vacation, or something similarly ridiculous.
-Dave
Dave R. on January 13, 2009 at 1:27 PM
Thank you for introducing me to a new experience – agreeing with you ;)
LimeyGeek on January 13, 2009 at 1:27 PM
What are these loons going to say when this country is attacked again?After jan. 20th when the libs have total control who will they blame for the ecomeny for hurricans for gas cost for everthing that goes bad.They wanted total control now they have it.
thmcbb on January 13, 2009 at 1:27 PM
With the borders wide open, it’s a miracle that we haven’t been attacked again. The FBI knows there are terrorists in our midst but can’t do anything until they make pretty mushroom clouds.
Yea, AQ didn’t want to get their butt kicked, now with Barry Whosane ‘in charge’, they don’t have to be patient. Joe called it: by July, we will be ‘tested’. If the Obama Administration gets it’s way, we’ll have the GITMO detainees down here at Camp Pendleton, (north of San Diego), and be the bulls-eye for the next attack.
Thanks Barry, I didn’t want my kids to grow up in the NAU anyway…I just hope it’s quick.
Christine on January 13, 2009 at 1:27 PM
I’ll flip my blast shield down and use the force
LimeyGeek on January 13, 2009 at 1:28 PM
Remember, these media people know that they are lying. They are lying because they think that is where the market is, and if that happens to hurt their country or their fellow citizens, too bad.
In the strange inverto-world we live in today, they who talk most about holding others to the truth are the liars, they who talk about peace are the ones who invite war by giving our enemies moral support, and they who talk about the evils of capitalism are the ones who have sold their souls for money.
Such people have always existed – the shocking thing to me is that they have found so many eager followers in this land where we are so comparitively rich, peaceful, and respectful of each other’s rights.
Told a guy at work who always argues for the superiority of all things European that he should listen to the NPR series this week on the profound depth of European racism and discrimination (NPR say something bad about Europe? I guess it’s okay to now, eh?). He shot back that everything there has gone to hell too, just like here, since Bush! It is so terrible what the media has done to some of us.
drunyan8315 on January 13, 2009 at 1:31 PM
al qaeda has always been patient with its attacks.
In ’96 they weren’t being hunted with anything near the ferocity being directed their way today. The 911 attack could have happened within a year of planning, that’s how deep our slumber was at the time.
AQ may have a large attack planned, yet their heirarchy are on the run pretty much everywhere and those planners would presumably wonder if they would survive to actually commit the attack.
Islamists celebrate killing an American or Israeli soldier, even if they lose fifty of their own doing it; any attack against us would be cause for them to prove their continued viability.
Bishop on January 13, 2009 at 1:31 PM
But I think we can all agree that the Bush administration’s efforts has greatly impacted that equation — which is my point. If we accept Suskind’s formulation that AQ is less interested in attacking, one has to ask why. It’s certainly not because they’ve changed their ideology or their predilection for violence. If it’s because they can’t stage the kind of high-impact attack in the US that they could on 9/11, then that points to Bush’s work in protecting the nation.
Put more simply: If they thought they could get away with it, they’d do it. They haven’t.
Ed Morrissey on January 13, 2009 at 1:31 PM
Possibly because it wouldn’t succeed. They thought the Towers would fall in ’93. Though they succeeded it was an overall failure.
I’m sure nothing is simple here.
Esthier on January 13, 2009 at 1:32 PM
“who will they blame for the ecomeny for hurricans for gas cost for everthing”…who else, but Dubya? They can’t take responsibility for anything, ever and they aren’t grateful for their ‘get out of ‘jail’ free’ card, or in this case, scapegoat–Bush. Moronic ingrates.
Christine on January 13, 2009 at 1:33 PM
As the war in the Pacific was starting to inflict greater damage to the Japanese home islands through late 1943 and 1944, and as the Japanese began losing island after island, their government explained it to the people as ADVANCING BACKWARDS.
J.J. Sefton on January 13, 2009 at 1:34 PM
I’ll flip my blast shield down and use the force
LimeyGeek on January 13, 2009 at 1:28 PM
It won’t save you.
Norris eats the Force™ for breakfast, and he would pull your frontal lobe through that blast shield using only his big toes.
Bishop on January 13, 2009 at 1:34 PM
rbj asked: I wonder what color the sky is in Suskind’s world?
Brown, I’d say.
MrFreeman07 on January 13, 2009 at 1:34 PM
So if we get attacked after PEBO gets into office, it won’t be because the terrorists realize we’re being led by an Empty Suit without the spine to respond but because they “got in the mood?”
katiejane on January 13, 2009 at 1:34 PM
Thank you for introducing me to a new experience – agreeing with you ;)
It’s really not so bad once you get used to it.
Tom_Shipley on January 13, 2009 at 1:34 PM
Dear Ed, with all due respect, wtf are you bothering with Ron Suskind for, other than sport. This guy is no more credible than Olberdouche.
Jaibones on January 13, 2009 at 1:34 PM
J.J. Sefton on January 13, 2009 at 1:34 PM
Yah. Hitler sat scheming in his Berlin bunker, artillery raining down around him and Russian tanks rumbling only blocks away, gleefully reporting that Stalin had taken the bait and soon would be wiped out.
Bishop on January 13, 2009 at 1:36 PM
I had to spend time in a waiting room today that has MSNBC on the TV.
Ya, not really related, but I have to get that off my chest. I need to get my hands on one of those “ninja” remotes.
reaganaut on January 13, 2009 at 1:36 PM
Possibly because it wouldn’t succeed.
That’s very true. I think the last thing they’d want is another “failed” attack like the first attack on the WTC.
I think it just goes to show that they need everything to be perfect to launch an attack and they’re very patient in waiting for the perfect conditions.
Tom_Shipley on January 13, 2009 at 1:36 PM
Absolutely correct. And believe it or not, there are some lefties out there who not only think that the programming on MSNBC is fair and balanced,(and Fox News is the propaganda arm of the GOP) but others still think that they don’t go far left enough.
.
Very well stated. “attacked Hitler when he violated treaties” is pretty much what Bush did when he enforced the 1991 cease-fire with Saddam Hussein when he went back in in 2003. Of course I don’t think that Saddam = Hitler, but the intent is the same.
wise_man on January 13, 2009 at 1:38 PM
Liberals will always try to frame the situation so that success for a republican president is not an option. It’s either a failure or things went ok for other reasons not connected with the president. Just look at the semantic gymnastics they did to avoid giving credit for the success of the surge….
Scrappy on January 13, 2009 at 1:38 PM
Hey…you’ve been cracking me up and/or making me think since I joined this asylum….so don’t change, Bud.
Patrick S on January 13, 2009 at 1:39 PM
Doesn’t make sense.
If it “fails”, just don’t take credit for it.
Disavow the dead and have the living claim they’re some unknown offshoot if it’s not big enough.
But if they really are stupid enough to have everything in place to kill Americans and then kill the stunt at the last second because it’s not “perfect”, then they’ll never pull the trigger.
Besides, 9/11 wasn’t “perfect” either. All of the hijackers didn’t get on and we were told there were plans to hijack even more planes.
NoDonkey on January 13, 2009 at 1:42 PM
Moot point, Tom. Unless you start writing comments that are based on reality, it just will not be possible.
:~]
Jaibones on January 13, 2009 at 1:42 PM
Suskind has such a stunning intellect. I wonder if he can find his ass, given a map and a compass.
GarandFan on January 13, 2009 at 1:42 PM
Sure. I would argue that the use of the word “greatly” is perhaps best understood from the perspective of our pathetic capabilities post-Clinton. Going from 1% effective to 25% (figures courtesy of my ass) would certainly be a ‘great’ improvement ;)
Suskind’s claim is as nonsensical as the Bush chest-thumpers.
Broadly-speaking, yes, I think this sums it up…but let’s not be too simplistic. After all, how hard is it to obtain a gun and kill a whitey? Why haven’t we seen murders of ‘typical’ Americans rise? They might ‘get away’ with a few, but eventually (and pretty rapidly) we would cotton-on to the game plan….can you imagine the damage that would do to muslim families/communities nationwide? Trust would be shattered, they would be ostricized and unable to participate in society at any level, maybe even seeing a revival of good ol’ lynchin’ mobs. The costs would be far greater to the overall AQ strategy than any benefit of a few singularly dead Americans.
LimeyGeek on January 13, 2009 at 1:43 PM
Bush hasn’t staged another 9/11, because he wasn’t in the mood.
/Troofer Suskind
Christien on January 13, 2009 at 1:44 PM
I remember reading something about different cultural time-horizons. How Americans like a good fight, duke it out, declare victory, wave flags & drink some beer…whereas AQ thinks in terms of generational conflict over decades.
LimeyGeek on January 13, 2009 at 1:46 PM
I was amused and angered by the way Matthews snuck in the dig at Bush about the pre-9/11 intel briefing. He said Bush failed to act on the briefing, implying that there was any info that would lead to useful action. This is becoming a frequently repeated big lie from the left.
snaggletoothie on January 13, 2009 at 1:48 PM
Chrissy sheepishly glances over at Ron and whispers…”I’m in the mood”. MSNBC, news for the hidden ho in all of us!
dmann on January 13, 2009 at 1:51 PM
Well if they were getting laid they wouldn’t be terrorists now would they? Okay probably not. :-)
baldilocks on January 13, 2009 at 1:55 PM
I wonder what size asshat Suskind wears? It certainly fits well…
Roc on January 13, 2009 at 1:56 PM
True, they are the most brilliant people ever invented. It’s like taking on a hurricane, an earthquake and an asteroid.
And here I thought they were a bunch of psychopathic goat sodomizers. Jokes on me.
Seriously, why is it that westerners apply mythical powers to these people? Arabs are pretty much the WORST fighters the world has ever known by far, they make the Italians and the French look tough.
It’s not that hard to defeat these people if we want to.
NoDonkey on January 13, 2009 at 1:56 PM
Tom:
AQ has a very long OODA loop. Their operational doctrine mandates that the planning, training and execution cycle takes a couple of years. It worked for them prior to 9-11. However, since 9-11 US reaction time has placed us inside their decision cycle. As a result it has become very difficult for them to complete an operational cycle before it gets compromised. This is the result of the last adminstration’s CT policy and strategy.
Suskind is an idiot. It is like saying the Japanese could have attacked Pearl Harbor again after December 7th but didn’t feel like it. AQ has not adapted to the new strategic and operation environment. Their big operations just take too much time to successfully complete. AQ is still very effective in areas where they have infrastructure in place to conduct rapid attacks.
jerryofva on January 13, 2009 at 1:57 PM
We haven’t been attacked again due to the enormity of al qaeda’s miscalculation the FIRST time. Only because of the response and subsequent prosecution of the war against terror by Mr, Bush & Co.
For those who can’t reason that out–they haven’t because they CANT.
irongrampa on January 13, 2009 at 1:58 PM
Ed, can’t prove a negative? Just watch MSNBC prove Obama saved those jobs that would have been lost had he not spent all that money.
Oleta on January 13, 2009 at 2:01 PM
It’s not that hard to defeat these people if we want to.
NoDonkey on January 13, 2009 at 1:56 PM
If we were allowed to; sadly, killing terrorists is to marginalize them and hurth their feelings and we can’t have that.
Break out the guitar, lets hold hands and sing.
Bishop on January 13, 2009 at 2:10 PM
Somebody tell PeeWee Herman Susskind that WMDs don’t exist.
whitetop on January 13, 2009 at 2:12 PM
It’s hard to defeat people who can’t be defeated, when the western media and faux intellectuals won’t allow it.
Kill them by a ratio of 100-1, smash their country so their people are scrambling around foraging for crap to burn to cook rats, and we or the Israelis “lost”.
Pretty hard to win with cheerleaders like that.
Kind of like asking you to beat a 200 point spread.
NoDonkey on January 13, 2009 at 2:19 PM
Umm, what about the attacks that muslim’s attempted after 9/11?
We’ve got the shoe bomber, Richard Reid.
We’ve got the plot to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge.
Jose Padilla trying to get a dirty bomb.
Attempted attack on Fort Dix – the muslim one, not the Weathermen one.
2004 Penn Station bombing attempt
the mid-air liquid explosive plot, foiled in England before they could take off on flights to the U.S.
There’s plenty more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,335500,00.html
hawksruleva on January 13, 2009 at 2:20 PM
I’m sure there are lots of reasons why the lefties can discount these.
After all, they are infallible and we are just completely at their mercy, according to our left wing elites.
But on the other hand, the war on terrorism is completely unnecessary.
If you can understand those two conflicting ideas, you are stupid enough to be a left wing intellectual.
NoDonkey on January 13, 2009 at 2:24 PM
What? Did Suskind hear Bin Laden say, “We’re not going to attack the Infidels again because we don’t want to, Nyah, Nyah, Nyah, Nyah, Nyah?
They need to change the name of PMSNBC to the Stupid National Obama Broadcast Station.
Idjits.
kingsjester on January 13, 2009 at 2:26 PM
Wow! What a twisted POS. I didn’t agree with everything Predident Bush did while in Office, but I think he did a fine job of keeping johnny jihad in check. Pusskind and his likes can’t seem to get around the hate and admit that the Man did something right. The whole freak parade can line up and take turns kissin’ my ass!
crazy texas on January 13, 2009 at 2:36 PM
Meh, Suskind = Baghdad Bob
Suskind = Major Tool!
Liberty or Death on January 13, 2009 at 2:38 PM
I’m sure Suskind is looking ahead and polishing his script for when we get attacked mess, so he can spin the blame away from Great Leader and onto Bush.
Maintaining that Bush didn’t protect us since 9/11 is part of that spin.
Suskind is a visionary.
NoDonkey on January 13, 2009 at 2:40 PM
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that Susskind is right: They Didn’t Want To. Well, why didn’t they? Is it because there weren’t enough of them left to Want To? Or because they expected to fail? Or because they knew that one more attack might be a tipping point that would get that other hand out from behind our collective back … and that is the hand that throws the haymakers?
If any of these are The Reason They Didn’t Want To, then our actions–Bush’s actions–are the Reason For The Reason They Didn’t Want To … and so are the reason that we’ve had no successful attacks.
njcommuter on January 13, 2009 at 2:42 PM
Excellent response to Susskind, njcommuter. And of course this type of reasoned logic would never appear on that program, where it would do the most good to counter this idiot’s logical fallacy.
The terrorists certainly wanted to while Clinton was president. And the months into the Bush presidency. After Bush’s response, and his actions to keep up safe – this is how they spin Bush’s actions and the reactions of AlQ.
wise_man on January 13, 2009 at 2:47 PM
“We haven’t been attacked because AQ wasn’t in the mood”
Ya bombs and death tend to do that, kill the mood.
According to Sunkiss, AQ hasn’t attacked cuz they haven’t put together a large WMD Package (weapon).
Uh, why haven’t they put together a large (or small) WMD Package?
Sunkiss doesn’t answer that one, I wonder why?
DSchoen on January 13, 2009 at 2:47 PM
Me thinks that AQ will suddenly want to attack the USA. Me also thinks that it will be their fault and not the one’s or GWB’s but under no circumstance will it be the one’s fault.
jukin on January 13, 2009 at 2:52 PM
According to Administration officials, the aggressive interrogations of three top AQ agents uncovered attacks that were later prevented.
Second, according to accounts I’ve read the mid-level agents of AQ – people with the training and expertise to carry out attacks – have been decimated by Administration actions. While Bin Laden and Zawahiri are still free (hiding out and with much limited capability to communicate with others), the mid-level people like KSM are either dead or in captivity. And without these agents, the ability of AQ to pull off future attacks has been damaged.
It’s all conjecture but logic tells you that forcing AQ on the defensive, eliminating their lieutenants, and more aggressive actions with out allies has to have diminished or weakened their ability to attack.
SteveMG on January 13, 2009 at 2:52 PM
I think there was to be only one 9/11. It was to get your attention and begin the siphoning off of your wealth and resolve. A nice bonus was the invitational infiltration in the quest for interpreters of Muslim words and intentions for the offices of American officialdom.
I doubt Bin Laden expected a string of 9/11 like actions were to force your surrender. Bin Laden was the bad cop on Islam, King Abdulla is the good cop on Islam.
We have been played big time and it is far from over yet.
BL@KBIRD on January 13, 2009 at 2:55 PM
“Maybe Suskind’s projecting from his love life?
Christien”
Uhm, wouldn’t someone have to be a self-centered/narcissistic moron to think like that?
DSchoen on January 13, 2009 at 2:56 PM
Uhm, wouldn’t someone have to be a self-centered/narcissistic moron to think like that?
DSchoen on January 13, 2009 at 2:56 PM
Yeah. That was Suskind talking. Not Chrissie or Olby.
kingsjester on January 13, 2009 at 3:04 PM
AQ was just waiting for Obama to get elected…Joe Biden said so.
Wyznowski on January 13, 2009 at 3:05 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »