Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Bush credit for no attack since 911?

I have to agree with the left wing on President Bush and his responsibility for the attacks of September 11, 2001 if he deserves credit for not having an attack since then.

It has become a standard talking point from former v.p. Cheney, and other spokespeople on the right that, President Bush "kept us safe".

First of all, the "safe" is from another attack since 2001. He was President. It is like the economy. In reality, there probably isn't much a President could really do but if you are going to take credit, then honest people have to assign the blame where appropriate also.

*President Bush had warnings about terrorists wanting to strike within the U.S.
*The U.S. had been attacked in 200 with the U.S.S. Cole and throughout the 1990's.
*The President was focused on politics like tax cuts and blocking stem cell research more than national security.

Again, perhaps all the President could have done was to highlight the problem, and put people on more of an alert. But he didn't do it.

You can't preside over the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil and then take credit for not having being subjected to another one.

I'm for the school of thought that says we should address this topic more as a United States and leaving the politics aside. I say this because the political arena is rather irrelevant.

Both parties generally support the actual soldiers.
Both parties generally support disaster relief.

and Both parties could generally support protecting the nation.

Leave it at that.

But I'm not going to let the Republicans have the upper hand and play politics.

No comments: