They Kept Us Safe -- or Did They?

President Bush and Dick Cheney, far busier with the Bush-Cheney Legacy Tour than with their final days exercising executive (or whatever branch Cheney's in) power--we can hope, are offering one overarching defense of the administration's performance: there was no further attack on "the homeland"--i.e., the US of A--since 9/11.

Setting aside the matter of the post-9/11 white powder episodes, this argument has a certain appeal that has attracted conservative pundits and bloggers. Sure, there have been terrorist attacks since 9/11 on London, Madrid, and Australians in Bali, as well as all sorts of folks in Mumbai, but--homeland safe.

So, if Bush & Cheney et al are entitled to brag about keeping America safe for seven years, logic dictates that Bill Clinton and co. can similarly boast about no attacks on the homeland after the first World Trade Center assault in 1993. Sure, there were attacks on the USS Cole and the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania--but nothing on the "homeland."

So, a question for conservatives: did the Clinton administration, like the Bush administration, do a fine job of protecting the country once it had undergone one al-Qaeda attack? Or did both administrations fail to prevent the initial attack in the first place?

Or does al-Qaeda just have a longer time-frame for its attention span than American administrations?

(EDITED TO CORRECT SPELLING AND INCLUDE TANZANIAN EMBASSY ATTACK)

Comments

[SailFree]

It appears they did keep us safe. We''ll see what Obama can do...

[michiganfan]

In addition to the anthrax attacks, you should also mention the DC snipers, which were most definitely a terrorist attack. (Although in republican-land, they wouldn't count because the attackers weren't muslims.)

[Bienville]

One of the shooters joined Nation of Islam and changed his name to John Muhammad in the year before the attacks. That seems pretty Muslim.

[LeftRight]

But they weren't foreign Muslim was the point that michiganfan was trying to make.

[SharonWantsToTalk]

They got lucky. Besides, it wasn't them that prevented an attack, it was instead the agents that have always been on the ground. And that's nothing Bush nor Cheney can take credit for. What they instead can take credit for is future attacks. Credit for creating tenfold interest in attacking America through their war on Iraq, their ignoring of Afghanistan, torture and their blatant outing of a CIA operative and her colleagues. They have done more to jeopardize our safety than any other entity EVER in American history.

[RepugsOut08]

Bin Laden stated that his purpose in attacking the towers, was to destroy the US economy. Ironically, although there were no homeland terrorist attacks from Bin Laden after 9/11, Bush actually did Bin Laden's work for him by invading Iraq and setting up our economy for disaster.
While Bush was busy trying to keep us safe from "evil doers," no one was keeping us safe from Bush.
By the way, Harry, didn't you just love Bush's little press conference tirade against the folks who claimed he didn't do enough for NO in the wake of Katrina? 30 thousand people pulled from roofs? By helicopter "drivers"?
While my hat's off the the (I believe they'd prefer to be called pilots) air rescue folks, me thinks the president doth exagerate.
My main recollection of rescue work on the ground, was Sean Penn in a rowboat, and Anderson Cooper in a tizzy!

[Bettysdad]

There has been no evidence presented that the Bushies busted up a single credible, plausible terrorist plot.

If there was, these guys would do everything to blow their own horn, including T-shirts.

[hgovernick]

Mr. Shearer,
My response to your article should be "pinned" somewhere at this blog for all to read. Regarding "terrorism", no President, past or present has kept us safe. Ask yourself "safe from what?". White powder? Bio-bombs? The obvious vulnerabilities mean little when you consider the following:

1. How many miles of unguarded natural gas and oil pipelines criss-cross this country?

2. How easy is it to export contaminated foods into the U.S.?

3. How many bridges spanning the Mississippi River are vulnerable to explosives?

4. How many small private planes have 24/7 free access to our nation's airspace?

5. How many power plants across the country are secure?

6. How many main water lines in major cities are vulnerable to explosives?

7. How safe is our satellite communications system?

8. How safe are our computerized security and infrastructure systems?

Finally, Al-Qaeda strikes when ready, regardless of who is President.

[BertrandRussell]

"My response to your article should be "pinned" somewhere at this blog for all to read."

That's all I read. Your post may be brilliant, I do not know, but I staunchly believe the old saying that anyone who claims to be wise is not.

Be well.

[hgovernick]

I understand your "logic". However, having knowledge and having Wisdom are two different things. My post makes no "claim" of wisdom, it offers knowledge. Your choice to read "Wisdom" into my opening statement was personal, for whatever reason. Your decision to not read the post was also personal, and, in my opinion, because of what I've offered in the post, your loss.

[fishgirl26]

Republicans have selective memory when it comes to "keeping us safe". If Bush would have gotten off of his collective arse and done a little reading (which after hearing about his lunch w/ Rush Limbaugh and him ordering a pb & j and referring to the jelly as colors ie...red & purple and not in flavors as a normal adult would do) makes me completely understand why the attacks happened on his watch. He had plenty of warning from the Clinton administration and then there is the whole memo thing. He didn't do what he should have done then. He couldn't even protect Americans from a hurricane....and there are pretty good warning systems available.....it's called the Weather Channel George!!!!! FAILED! FAILED! FAILED! Quit trying to convince us otherwise George!!! My phone is not safe, my retirement is not safe, my country is not safe.

[Senzasord]

The whole sentiment about Bush kept us safe is barely relevant. What was far more necessary was someone to keep us safe from Bush. After all Bin Laden didn't get us into a war that had no basis in fact, Bush did. Bin Laden didn't destroy our economy, Bush did. Bin Laden didn't trash our Constitution, Bush did. Bin Laden didn't make the United States of America a laughingstock among the nations of the world, Bush did. Bin Laden didn't wage continuous war on the American middle class for eight years, Bush did. Bush never stopped thinking about new ways to destroy our country, and he is still a clear and present danger to the American way of life.

Now, without Bush to do his work for him, Bin Laden will have to come again on his own. We will see how well Bush protected us.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Congress clearly was working harder to keep us, and interns, safe from Clinton. Impeached.
Bush? Off the table.

Kind of ironical.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Excellent. By that logic, it's no tie.

Bush did worse than Clinton.

Clinton, as it were, got by with some WTC basement damage.

Bush lost the entire WTC, AND took a hit to the Pentagon, even given foreknowledge of the 1993 attack, as well as the pointed PDB, etc.

[MajorKong]

We've had a USS Cole a month in Iraq since 2003.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Exactly.

Then there's the economics of war: No $3 Trillion hit to the economy on Clinton's watch.

And then there's all the servicemen and women lost.

[Psychodelic]

No, they did not keep us safe. They plunged us into WW3. Just wait, Iran will back Palestine, the United States will back Israel, and then Russia will back Iran, and so it goes until the nuclear warheads are falling out of the sky. Intelligent people need to act fast. Or not, maybe it doesn't matter. Eh well.

[slarabee]

When you don't pay attention to anything but your own interests everything that happens outside of those interests comes as a surprise. In our individual lives this is dangerous enough but the Bush Administration has proven beyond repudiation the tragic result of such tunneled vision in leadership.

[caterpol]

Even if their claim had any merit, when their "solutions" created even bigger problems both at home and abroad, it's hardly something to brag about. This admin failed on so many levels, I'm actually embarassed for them.

[demfriend]

Those in the "know" about the Clinton years must have wondered aloud after 9/11 when those who had the information to pass along to the Bush people talked about what information they had imparted to them about Bin Laden and Al quada during the change over which warned of what "could happen" and then did. I was angry to hear then all the talk about the "warnings" supposedly given and were not "listened to o heard" by the Bush group. If there had been such information available during the Clinton years why then wait to hand it all over to Bush like a hot potato? Why did the "Cole" attack and the first twin towers attack be swept under the rug until the next big thing, 9/11? I always had felt, believed that we had superior intel from the CIA etc al over theworld where we needed to know, we knew. The absolute failures havejust added up since then. The lack of informed intel about the middle east has been a joke. Who thought we would be fighting there when history and those who do know about the middle east have been ignored or not even asked about what would happen and still is happening there to our own troops?

[KarenT]

The scientific community knew Katrina was coming. An article in the 2/06 issue of Scientific American. A must read:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=protecting-new-orleans

[Harry Shearer - Huffpost Blogger]

Must reading, perhaps but off the point: the article states,
"Yet scientists, engineers and Louisiana state politicians had warned for years that a Category 4 or 5 storm crossing the Gulf of Mexico from a certain direction would drown the region." In fact, Katrina was a weak Cat 2 or strong Cat 1 by the time it reached New Orleans. It didn't "drown the region", it battered the Mississippi Gulf Coast with typical hurricane-force wind damage, and the design and construction flaws of the "hurricane protection system" in New Orleans led to the catastrophic breaching of that system at surge levels lower than the system was advertised to withstand.

[KarenT]

I read this article when it came out. When Katrina actually hit and missed New Orleans, everyone was relieved. I went back to the article and realized that within a day New Orleans would be under water due to the breach. The article is relevant even if it wasn't a direct hit.