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: « Previous 1 2
Blackbird:
Then how to you explain the other attacks that were known to be thwarted? Was that just part of an AQ Deception Plan designed to make us think they wanted to attack us again?
jerryofva on January 13, 2009 at 3:10 PM
Bush & his team have also done much to thrwart attacks around the world.
jgapinoy on January 13, 2009 at 3:15 PM
They were thwarted only BECAUSE Al Qaeda wanted us to thwart them, so they could fool us into thinking we were thwarting them, see?
But they never wanted them to succeed.
Sort of like all of the attacks they didn’t plan, but didn’t succeed because they didn’t plan them.
And their planning cycles takes, like, decades.
Rasheed in logistics has been having some computer problems too and you know how slow Al Qaeda sys admin can be.
So really, it had nothing to do with Bush.
Al Qaeda could kill us all if they wanted to, they just don’t, well, FEEL like it right now.
But that’s no reason to try and stop them beforehand, of course.
NoDonkey on January 13, 2009 at 3:15 PM
thrwartthwartjgapinoy on January 13, 2009 at 3:15 PM
It is hard to be in the mood when you live in a cave and you get you butt kicked by the U.S. military, every time that you come out of the cave.
Johan Klaus on January 13, 2009 at 3:17 PM
Oh yeah and The GOP got it’s ass handed to them because that was their plan all along.
thomasaur on January 13, 2009 at 3:33 PM
Exactly.
And GM made crappy cars for decades while overpaying union layabouts, in order to get those big bucks from Congress.
Worked like a charm.
NoDonkey on January 13, 2009 at 4:07 PM
Long Live George W. Bush Liberator of Millions. the world will miss you once Obama lets everyone down and AQ tries again and is successful
tjexcite on January 13, 2009 at 4:19 PM
Ed, I agree with Suskind (OMG) AQ has the means to bring mass destruction across either our southern or northern border, proven on numerous recent occasions. So why didn’t they? Bush has not secured the Borders AT ALL.
We’ve been lucky. They can walk in here ANY TIME THEY LIKE. And they probably already have.
dogsoldier on January 13, 2009 at 4:22 PM
Does anyone here truly believe that if a terrorist organization wanted to launch an attack on the US mainland, they’d be unlikely to succeed? How many of you have guns in your home and a mall within driving distance? Terrorism is easy. We’re certainly not any safer than we were before Bush’s rule. It could be that they don’t want to attack us, or more likely, that they’re too busy attacking (and being attacked by) our soldiers over there. But just because we’ve kept them busy doesn’t mean that we’re any safer.
Mark Jaquith on January 13, 2009 at 4:23 PM
So what should Bush have done, banned guns and malls?
We have home grown psychopaths who kill people in malls all of the time, we don’t need to import stinky foreigners for that.
But nothing like 9/11 has happened.
So what do you think we should do?
NoDonkey on January 13, 2009 at 4:29 PM
That’s quite funny. You’re a real comedian.
So they’ve been too busy to attack us and kill Americans like they want to ….. and this doesn’t make us safer.
So what would make us safer in your opinion? To do what Bill Clinton did while they grew under his watch and wait for them to attack us, kill Americans on our own soil – so we can arrest them after the fact, like he was so proud of after WTC attack #1?
Is that what you mean, sport?
wise_man on January 13, 2009 at 4:48 PM
We’re now being told that Al Qaida hasn’t attacked since 9/11 because they unilaterally decided to cancel all their attempts while Bush was President…
So, if the terrorists DO decide to attack while Obama is in office, then what does that say about the worldwide outpouring of love toward America that was supposed to commence the day the Evil George McChimpyBush left office?
logis on January 13, 2009 at 5:00 PM
I sort of believe that. When you are hiding in a cave in some god forsaken place on the planet, praying that the next drone doesn’t send a missile down your chimney, attacking the U.S. probably isn’t the absolute top thing on your list of priorities. You have more important things to do, like trying to clean those permanent stains out of your shorts.
Buford on January 13, 2009 at 5:15 PM
Just wait until al-Qaeda unleashes its horde of attack-trained Schroedinger’s Cats, who will be neither real nor imaginary until a liberal decides to notice them.
Doctor Zero on January 13, 2009 at 5:45 PM
I loved your post!
I blame Bush for AQ’s failure to attack us successfully since 911. Why, if he hadn’t invaded Afganistan and Iraq there is no telling where AQ would be now.
Anyone who doesn’t blame Bush for AQ’s failure is trying to make AQ look good at his expense. Perhaps AQ is depressed that they have had their butt kicked all over the planet. Like Bush said they can run but they can’t hide. Gosh it’s plum eerie the way AQ seems to have gone into hiding. Even our Predator drones are scoring success after success. Someone is giving them up to us. Where is Osama? I bet Bush got him and AQ is afraid to tell us. Those dirty scum.
kanda on January 13, 2009 at 6:10 PM
It is true that al qaeda or any loose group of terrorists could attack anytime they want and kill hundreds of Americans. They don’t attack because they don’t much care for Bush’s “heavy-handed” reaction to their attacks.
Buddahpundit on January 13, 2009 at 6:37 PM
sdd
“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.”
Dude look on the bright side!
You can still vote in Chicago!
DSchoen on January 13, 2009 at 9:23 PM
So, I guess that Bush could have done nothing and they would have passed on attacking? Please.
-
Damned if they do, damned if they don’t…
RalphyBoy on January 13, 2009 at 10:13 PM
And yet there’s the point; in your example, it’s not that they don’t want to, it’s that our actions – Bush’s actions – impacted their plans and activities. That. Is. The. Point.
Midas on January 13, 2009 at 10:39 PM
How do leftists tie their shoes every day?
Or do they all wear slip-ons?
Merovign on January 13, 2009 at 10:44 PM
Is there any reason to believe that that expectation was any less, prior to 9/11? And who is “we”, exactly? And “difused”? Please. The guy led us to attack a country that had nothing to do with it.
Look, I’m sure people will be pondering it for years, but I don’t see that much evidence to support the idea that the attacks were meant to be some sort of opening salvo in what would be wave after wave of carnage.
So, why did they do it? Was it simply to kill as many Americans as possible? One would have to wonder why the Pentagon was hit. Surely there are deadlier targets than that. A statement, then? A provocation? Would Bush take credit for delivering the intended response?
Needless to say, I’ve never really understood this “but he kept us safe” talking point. It’s not like bin Laden and Al Qaeda suddenly appeared on the radar September 11th. And us regular civilians certainly aren’t privy to the classified intel and details of disrupted plots, so I guess none of us can really speak knowledgeably about whether 9/11 was the one or just the one that got through. But think it’s kinda silly praise him for what hasn’t happened while giving him a pass for what did.
ChenZhen on January 13, 2009 at 11:49 PM
ChenZhen: President Bush was the bestest President ever! He kept us safe.
Really pisses you off doesn’t it?
Vince on January 14, 2009 at 12:03 AM
“Tom_Shipley
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.”
So, if someone in 1993, was able to realize/visualize that blowing the bottom of the WTC was intended to bring the building down killing everyone in the building we would have gone after them, then?
Ya know 170 people were indicted for that bombing including Bin Laden?
Seriously is there anyone who didn’t think the 1993 WTC bombing was not intended to bring the building down with every one in the building?
Honestly there is no 1, single, sole thing that Bush has done to protect the USA it’s a bunch of stuff, mainly going after AQ, Bin Laden.
AQ has been stopped, so far, because we have taken the fight to them.
Proactive vice Reactive.
Since 20/20 hindsight is now a valid in making a judgment call how bright was the Clinton admin?
Considering Obama’s Admin is drawing heave from the Clinton Admin, is this a good thing or a bad thing.
DSchoen on January 14, 2009 at 12:04 AM
“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 “
absolutely.
What changed?
From our response during Clinton and our response during Bush?
res ipsa loquitur
DSchoen on January 14, 2009 at 12:14 AM
I think Iraq and Afganistan are the keys.Al Qaeda cannot countenance us being on Muslim land, so they have concentrated their forces to fight us there. That means that their resources are concentrated in Iraq and Afghanistan, far from our homeland. Even as the war seesaws from battle to battle, the overall trend is obvious. For every one of our soldiers killed, we are killing at least one Al Qaeda officer. If you look at the war from that standpoint, it’s obvious who’s winning
Bush understood one important thing every good general knows — you fight a war on your enemy’s land wherever possible. Where we are having to fight it on our land (at every airport and every port of entry), it is doggedly expensive, and all of us pay the price (even Mr. Yon, as we have learned).
But Al-Qaeda has it worse — the mere fact that we still have troops in the Middle East means they are not winning. The only way they can win is to push our troops out. Sadly, if the incoming Administration loses will (as Reagan did in Lebanon), we will be fighting these same guys on our land again.
unclesmrgol on January 14, 2009 at 1:06 AM
Sort of like giving Roosevelt a pass for Pearl Harbor since he knew something was up in the Pacific.
From the press reports:
Among the known plots that have been thwarted under Bush are:
And of course what about in Europe following the leadership of President Bush
It has been a long worldwide fight against Al Quaida that began at least 7 or more years before Bush took office and is likely to extend long after he leaves office. If we let down our guard Al Quaida will surley attack us again. Even if we stay vigilant they may succeed again. How we handly that as a nation under Obama will be the deciding factor for our ultimate victory in this war.
kanda on January 14, 2009 at 6:17 AM
They need something more sturdy to cover their cloven hooves.
NoDonkey on January 14, 2009 at 8:31 AM
When AQ does attack while BO is in office, it will be a clear indication of racism in the Arab world. Alert the media, put Chris Matthews tingly leg on it, send out the Rainbow coalition, Al “not too” Sharp-ton and Acorn.
Hell, we can mobilize the civilian army of Obamanauts who are now bumping into each other without purpose, to invite AQ to a drum circle of friendship and hope. And Suskind and Matthews can say that it wouldn’t have happened if President Bush hadn’t “over reacted” to 2,976 Americans who were MURDERED during an attack on OUR country…he was so mean.
PatriotPete on January 14, 2009 at 11:22 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2