Post by wheelspinner on Jan 25, 2009 18:26:23 GMT -5
"There hasn't been a single terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11. This proves Bush did a wonderful job on national security".
Over the years I must have heard this claim, or a variation of it, countless times. And every time I hear it, I just want to scream. It is wrong, wrong, wrong. It is intellectually dishonest and misleading, and should be challenged whenever it is uttered.
Here's why:
1. It's an out-and-out lie. Unless you are going to argue that sending anthrax-tainted letters to elected representatives through the mail is somehow not terrorism. That occurred after 9/11. Similarly, the shoe bomber Richard Reid attempted a terrorist attack in December 2001. Since Reid was tried in the USA, we can safely assume that his attack legally took place under US jurisdiction and under the auspices of Bush's national security responsibilities. I suppose you could argue that Reid's attack did not take place "on US soil" (because it occurred in the air), which would merely underline how desperate the promulgators of this lie are for a formulation that absolves Bush.
2. It glosses over Bush's accountability for national security. As Lazarus has argued elsewhere, a President is judged on his years of service, not just on his inauguration. Similarly, Bush's national security credentials should be judged by his entire two terms, not by some artificial construction that conveniently ring-fences his greatest failure. The fact is, 9/11 occurred on Bush's watch, and was one of the greatest national security failures ever. It is ridiculous to spout arguments like "since 9/11" as if that somehow absolves Bush from this failure.
3. It assumes that the right of Americans to security ceases when they leave US shores. You know the line - "He fought the terrorists over there so we didn't have to fight them here". Except that Bush's responsibility for the security of Americans does not stop at your borders. Leaving aside the thousands who have died on his watch in military entanglements, there have been numerous US citizens who have died in places like Bali and Mumbai expressly because of Bush's policies. Is it somehow an achievement of Bush's that an American died of a terrorist bombing when holidaying in Bali rather than in LA? Dead is dead.
As you can see, this argument really gets up my nose. I am sick of hearing it, but I suspect it has become a meme that will now form an unchallenged part of Bush's legacy. As that legacy is being debated and the histories start to be written it is important, now more than ever, that this lie be stopped in its tracks.
Over the years I must have heard this claim, or a variation of it, countless times. And every time I hear it, I just want to scream. It is wrong, wrong, wrong. It is intellectually dishonest and misleading, and should be challenged whenever it is uttered.
Here's why:
1. It's an out-and-out lie. Unless you are going to argue that sending anthrax-tainted letters to elected representatives through the mail is somehow not terrorism. That occurred after 9/11. Similarly, the shoe bomber Richard Reid attempted a terrorist attack in December 2001. Since Reid was tried in the USA, we can safely assume that his attack legally took place under US jurisdiction and under the auspices of Bush's national security responsibilities. I suppose you could argue that Reid's attack did not take place "on US soil" (because it occurred in the air), which would merely underline how desperate the promulgators of this lie are for a formulation that absolves Bush.
2. It glosses over Bush's accountability for national security. As Lazarus has argued elsewhere, a President is judged on his years of service, not just on his inauguration. Similarly, Bush's national security credentials should be judged by his entire two terms, not by some artificial construction that conveniently ring-fences his greatest failure. The fact is, 9/11 occurred on Bush's watch, and was one of the greatest national security failures ever. It is ridiculous to spout arguments like "since 9/11" as if that somehow absolves Bush from this failure.
3. It assumes that the right of Americans to security ceases when they leave US shores. You know the line - "He fought the terrorists over there so we didn't have to fight them here". Except that Bush's responsibility for the security of Americans does not stop at your borders. Leaving aside the thousands who have died on his watch in military entanglements, there have been numerous US citizens who have died in places like Bali and Mumbai expressly because of Bush's policies. Is it somehow an achievement of Bush's that an American died of a terrorist bombing when holidaying in Bali rather than in LA? Dead is dead.
As you can see, this argument really gets up my nose. I am sick of hearing it, but I suspect it has become a meme that will now form an unchallenged part of Bush's legacy. As that legacy is being debated and the histories start to be written it is important, now more than ever, that this lie be stopped in its tracks.
