No Attacks Since When?

In her column for the Wall Street Journal, the insufferably pompous Charles Emerson Winchester of the D.C. punditocracy, Peggy Noonan contributed to a massive hoax which I've nicknamed the 'No Attacks' Mythology:

This is an argument that's been around for a while but is newly re-emerging as the final argument for Mr. Bush: the one big thing he had to do after 9/11, the single thing he absolutely had to do, was keep it from happening again. And so far he has.

Now, of course she's right. "It" hasn't happened again. Fact: no additional hijacked airplanes have crashed into the World Trade Center towers since September 11. Why? Because those buildings were already attacked and destroyed, killing thousands of Americans after President Bush and his staff repeatedly ignored warnings from a variety of counter-terrorism and national security experts.

Noonan continued:

We have not been attacked since 9/11. Someone -- someones -- did something right.

Someones?

This is all part of a huge lie, and the lie is rapidly becoming reality thanks to various Bush apologists and dead-enders.

Perhaps it's been reignited in conjunction with the Bush "legacy project" -- an effort organized by Karl Rove to somehow fabricate a positive legacy for this awful president. If there remains any justice in this nation, let history show that the only thing this administration was actually good at was fabricating its own version of reality. They've failed at everything else and then made up stuff to obfuscate those failures. So here. I'll be magnanimous and make Rove's gig really easy by offering a suggestion: the "legacy project" is the Bush legacy. In other words, it's very likely that President Bush will be remembered for things like, you know, the "legacy project."

Nevertheless, yes, Ms. Noonan, we have been attacked on American soil since September 11 despite the Bush administration's invasions, its torturing, its illegal wiretapping and its crimes against the Constitution.

The anthrax attacks and the DC Snipers to name two. But since we don't yet know the identity of the anthrax attacker(s) -- they haven't, after all, been captured and brought to justice by the mighty Bush administration -- let's focus exclusively on terrorists John Allen Muhammed and Lee Boyd Malvo. More Americans were, in fact, killed by the DC Snipers (16 killed) than were killed in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing (6 killed). Additionally, there were nearly as many people killed by the DC Snipers as were killed in the al-Qaeda bombing of the USS Cole (17 killed).

Are the DC Sniper shootings somehow less dazzling and, therefore, do they not count as actual terrorist attacks on American soil? If that's the case then there were, in fact, zero attacks during the Clinton administration. Wow, President Clinton was really excellent at keeping us safe. So much for Democrats being weak on national security, eh?

Elsewhere, during the Bush years, there have been literally tens of thousands of terrorist attacks involving American casualties and deaths. In the 'No Attacks' Mythology chapter of my book, I debunked similar Noonanish claims, including one by Lynne Cheney who appeared on The Daily Show in October, 2007 and similarly suggested that there weren't any attacks since September 11.

You know I think when the history books are written, we will look back on this period of time, and we will say on 9/11 we really thought within six months we would be attacked again. Even six weeks. It's been more than six years and that is not an accident.

When Jon Stewart challenged Mrs. Cheney by mentioning the bombings in Madrid and London, Cheney replied by suggesting that those attacks weren't against "American interests." Okay, then, let's ignore the fact that Spain and Great Britain are allies of the United States and talk about actual American interests. Specifically, Iraq and Afghanistan. In my book, I wrote:

A non-profit think tank called the Memorial Institute for Prevention of Terrorism (MIPT) has been maintaining an online Terrorism Knowledge Base since the middle 1990s. In it, they report that between September 11, 2001 and March 2008, there have been 9,675 terrorist attacks in Iraq, accumulating 46,271 injuries and 26,161 deaths. In Afghanistan--that other American interest--there have been 1,069 terrorist attacks in which 2,323 people were injured and 1,809 people were killed.

No attacks, Ms. Noonan? I only wish that were true.

BobCesca.com

Order my new book: One Nation Under Fear, with a foreword by Arianna Huffington. Also available in stores.

Comments

[AmeriGus]

I would like to take this opportunity to take credit for no volcanoes erupting since Mt. Saint Helen's. I also was able to prevent all zeppelin disasters since the Hindenberg and let me tell you, it wasn't easy - I had to round up all the zeppelins and volcanoes and put them in detention facilities to "send a message".

This is pretty much the logic used by Bush, under whose leadership we've seen thousands of troops killed. Al Qaeda hasn't attacked the US because they're still basking in the glow of getting 9/11 past Bush's watchful eye.

Don't forget Colin Powell also made the rounds declaring victory in the war on terror by claiming terrorist incidents around the world had decreased. When his statistics were checked though, it was the exact opposite - "We got the numbers wrong" muttered Colin Powell after acknowledging that international terror attacks actually hit all time highs. They crowed about it at first, but ignored the whole issue when the real figures were discovered. This shows Bush only cares about himself - he discards the matter if it doesn't pump up his image, even if it involves our safety.

[BBackSoon]

Oh let us not forget that it now sucks to travel by air. No nail clippers take your shoes off at the gate and no more than 3 oz of any liquid.

I for one do not feel safer when being screened by minimum wage Homeland Security personnel. I see rude governmental workers that get paid to hassle us. I have not had the luxury of traveling around the world, but I understand most places around the world have Police or Military personnel maintaining security at the airports. They look for realistic threats and suspicious behavior not for the "Threat of the Day" (Check everyone wearing Orange.)

We still have done almost nothing to secure Docks, Nuclear Power plants, Chemical plants or Oil Refineries. We are only lucky nothing else has happened.

[CitizenJ]

It takes years to plan an attack anywhere near the scale of 9/11. The only thing Bush has done has been to increase the odds that we will be attacked again. For every "Number 2" al Qaeda member we kill, 3 more are created somewhere.

[24hourrifle]

picture this...9/11 happens with a democratic president in office.and lets say,other than that one disaster,this democratic president,lets call him Hal Bore,has a great eight years.no preemptive wars,no drowning citizens in major cities,no DOJ scandals,no wiretapping us citizens,etc...just that one thing.how do you think republicans would have run their 2008 pres. campaign?im guessing it would have went something like...
"9/11 happened on their watch.worst attack on american soil ever.it was Hal Bore's fault.elect our candidate or else there will be more attacks.
yet somehow,bush is known as "the guy who kept us safe for 7 1/2 years".they are rewriting history as we speak and the msm is holding their hand and assisting them mightily as they do it.

[flash LI]

You're funny Bob. What cha been smokin' today? huh?

[appleknocker]

Actually, the one thing Bush did that may have prevented more attacks on American soil is something that is never mentioned, especially by the neocons. Shortly after 9/11, he withdrew American troops from Saudi Arabia - AS OSAMA BIN LADIN HAD DEMANDED! Whether the absence of subsequent attacks is coincidental, I can't know. What we do know is that bin Ladin had listed that as his #1 grievance.

In any event, when Cesca refers to the DC snipers in this context , he seems to me as silly as Noonan.

[karinova]

Silly? Maybe not.
Keep in mind, the DC thing was only a year after nine-eleven.
Yes, thankfully, it turned out that it wasn't what we were afraid it might be.

But again, I say the point is not what they intended, but what they actually achieved: a successful three-week, broad-daylight reign-of-you-know-what. Even though law enforcement was presumably on alert-- a month before the anniversary of nine-eleven, what color were at? Orange or red?-- somehow sixteen people died before they were stopped. This wasn't Podunk, this was the nation's capital.

[MrJoyboy]

Only attacks against New York's financial district by foreigners count as attacks. Attacks against the financial district by greedy derivatives traders and investment bankers don't count.

[ExRepublican]

Bob

All of what you said is true. But, if all grown up and everything, isn't it time to drop the blaming crap? Finally? It's old news that far right nuts are ins*ne and we, for whatever strange reason, decided to let B*sh and all of his far right nuts (including Peggy) off the hook.

Mr O is the elected one. Now what? See any problems there? Any problems with his deluded followers? Any solutions? Any reality?

[IamPhenom]

In other words, move along now, no horrible Bush record to see here. Just stop talking about it. Instead, we should criticize the Obama record that does not yet exist. We shouldn't focus on the horrible failures under the Bush administration because that would be "blaming". Instead, we should find something to blame Obama for, even though he is weeks away from being President. That's what adults and "ex" Republicans do.

[lucylou]

As Bill Maher stated so accurately, "the terrorists are merely reloading".

If any sane person thinks that forcing my 4 yr. old nephew to remove his shoes at airports is "keeping us safe", I'm sure they're also the same ones who believe Saddam Hussein 'attacked our freedoms'. These charades are purely decorative to avoid the lawsuits come the next one.

[RussellH]

The "Legacy Project," a metaphor for revisionist history, is also designed to protect or improve Karl Rove's legacy. And we mustn't overlook the other "project" member, Karen Hughes. I recall she left the Bush administration to return to Texas to spend more time with her family. But then, because she was so close to Bush when he was Texas governor, he created a post for her as a goodwill ambassador to the Middle East and southeast Asia. (Perhaps she found her family boring---or in need of college tuition?) Well, I cannot say how long that lasted but she accomplished nothing but to accrue more air miles at our expense. Seeing her again on TV talk shows as a quasi-commentator proves what a vapid woman she is! And when I think that Texas could have had Ann Richards for a second term but elected Dubya instead, we know what incompetence that led to. Hard not to affix some blame on the benighted citizens of the Lone Star State---lone as in a one-star president with a five-star one soon to be inaugurated. The country knows how to make corrections; it just takes longer than some of us can stomach. Rove/Hughes? There is no legacy whatsoever to be proud of. We shall only know dime-store fiction from these yahoos!

[TERRYKEITH4]

We should give Texas back to Mexico.

[dac253]

More Americans have died in the illegal war in Iraq since March 20, 2003 than died on September 11th.

[torrrep]

It's not an illegal war. Maybe you should try reading a little on international law and how it applies to U.N. brokered cease fires.

[Pearlswan]

Its illegal to invade a country for its resources. We invaded Iraq for its oil. Therefore, the Iraq war is an illegal war.

[Bulbul]

Some of our leaders and media , still cling to the fact, " our troops are fighting there, so we can cross the street here".....
When are they going to look at the world as one ? There is no us anymore, we are all interlinked by a narrow thread , any moment that can give in . Mumbai attack , who lost their lives ? Indians, Americans. Japanese, Chinese, Australians and so on...
Day before yesterday 9/11, yesterday Madrid, today Mumbai . We need to work as one, so there can not be any attacks tomorrow.
That is the mission of tomorrow`s Obama and his high profile cabinet, damage control of the very long past eight years !

[markbaker]

I hate to be the devil's advocate, but no terrorist attacks during Clinton? you forgot the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995 - the greatest domestic terrorist attack.

Also, you've left out a couple post 9/11 white supremacist plots to blow up federal buildings that were foiled but went under the radar.

[karinova]

You don't get it:
Noonan and Rove claim we've had no attacks since the WTC. But they ignore the anthrax thing and the DC sni.pers, among other things. Why? Are they saying that when Americans do things like this to Americans on American soil, it doesn't count as ter.ro.rism?

Cesca's point, via reductio ad absurdum, is that if the DC sni.pers don't count, then Oklahoma City doesn't count.

But of course, his real point is that they BOTH count.

[torrrep]

Get a clue. When they say we "have not been attacked" they are referring to foreigners attacking us on our on soil. The D.C. snipers were Americans. They are not foreigners. And no one knows who did the anthrax so you can't count that. Terrorism attacks usually refer to someone using weapons such as explosives or chemical or biological weapons to inflict damage on a large amount of people at the same time. The D.C. snipers were serial killers. Are we going to classify all serial killings as terrorist attacks?

[dolphy]

How about bombings of women's clinics? Shooting of doctors? Literal bashing of gays to death? Burning and vandalism of black churches, synagogues and other places of worship? BTW, do you notice that all these heinous crimes were done by so called "Christians'?

[torrrep]

Really? Prove to me that anyone convicted in any of those crimes were regular church attending people. Just because someone says they are a Christian doesn't mean that they are. The Bible states exactly and specifically the requirements of being a Christian. Recent polls show that over 80% of Americans claim they are Christians. Do you honestly believe that this makes them all Christians? And even if all of the people you mention were Christians then guess what? You can not criticize the religion based on the actions of a few. Christ defines Christianity. Not his followers.

[BN2112]

Do you apply the same criteria to those terrorists who CLAIM to be Muslims?

[CellarDoor]

For those who really believe Bush has kept us safe due to the absence of an attack on US soil by Al Qaida, please explain the following "snag" in your logic:

It is a fact that Bush was warned about 9/11 prior to it occurring. Rice herself recounted this fact in recorded testimony (don't take my word for it...look it up). Bush himself, famously told the clerk who warned 'Bin Laden determined to strike US', "Fine, you've covered your ass" in a recorded meeting (look this up too). But apparently, Bush was too busy going on vacation (more than any other PotUS in his first six months) to use his apparent magical powers to protect Americans. It took over 3000 Americans being killed for him to come to our rescue and protection.

As if you'd let the man babysit your second child after he allowed, by conscious inaction, the first one to drown.

Turn their idiot argument back on itself and back towards them and watch their eyes glaze. These people are masters of semantics only; they know nothing of logic, tactics, or strategy. Do not bother to debate logical fallacies and give credence to the arguments of children.

[BN2112]

Bingo! The bottom line is they failed to protect us ON Nine-Eleven after ample warning. But the first WTC attack was somehow Clinton's fault even though he had only been in office about a month at teh time.

[camper65]

I think the real problem is that we didn't protect OURSELVES!

[torrrep]

Really? Now explain to me exactly where it mentions in the 9/11 report where the president was given the specifics of when and how we were going to be attacked. "Bin Laden determined to strike US". No kidding? Name one person with any kind of intelligence that didn't already know that? Are you meaning to tell me that they weren't intent on striking the US prior to Bush? You mean all of the planning stages, the airline training, and practice runs all took place in the 9 months Bush was in office? And even if you were such an idiot to believe such things it wouldn't put a "snag" in any logic. The fact is that there has been no attack since 9/11. For you to say "there has been no attack by al qaeda sincce 9-11 except for the attack on 9-11" shows your logic is a little impaired. I've actually taken time to read the 9/11 report. Have you?

[CellarDoor]

I was incorrect and not clear with my wording. The warning was "Bin Laden determined to strike US".

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/

I was obviously incorrect when I wrote "Bush knew about 9/11 prior to it occurring". Bush, nor anybody else, knew any specifics of the attack or even that we would, "for sure" BE attacked.

I apologize for my lack of clarity and the falseness of my wording.

I was attempting to point out that claiming that 'the absence of attack proves that our leadership was actively protecting us' is a logical fallacy. It could very well be true and I'd be delighted to hear of any examples but my guess is, outside of the trumped up wannabe's "plan" to blow up the Sears Tower, there have been no credible interruptions of terrorist activity in the US since 9/11. Granted, I don't know for sure but my guess is our leadership would be the first to inform us and the world that we actually can protect ourselves from terrorism. Which, historically speaking, is almost impossible.

'torrep', no need to try to insult me...I'm perfectly capable of realizing a mistake, clarifying, and then apologizing for it. However, there IS a snag in the absolute logic of claiming the absence of one thing is proof of another. I can claim that the absence of reasoned maturity in your post is indicative of a poor conversationalist but I don't know that for sure.

[realwoman]

Sure cellardoor, whatever you say. Bush knew all about it. Yea, aha, sure.