Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (69121)	5/29/2008 7:21:47 AM
From: KonKilo	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 542139

Are We Safer? The author seems too willing to give GWB a pass for taking his eye off the ball in allowing 9/11. The biggest terrorist attack on our soil ever and he seems disinclined to assign any blame at all to the CiC whose watch it happened on. Other than the frequency with which he uses the word "may" in the next to last paragraph, I would agree that our much-improved vigilance has helped us thwart any further attacks, which is how it should be. I give no creedence to the flypaper theory. Al Queda could certainly spare 19 hijackers from the battlefield again if they wanted to. I give credit to our increased vigilance and intel gathering for the diminished attacks and give GWB the credit he is due for that. But it still doesn't absolve him of 9/11.

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (69121)	5/29/2008 7:24:25 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542139

"Over the course of the Bush administration, successful attacks on the United States and its interests overseas have dwindled to virtually nothing." That's an interesting argument, but it's probably too soon to make it. It's like saying that global warming has ceased because it's been cooler over the past five years. Maybe, maybe not.

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (69121)	5/30/2008 6:13:18 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542139

>>Empirically, however, it seems beyond dispute that something has made us safer since 2001. Over the course of the Bush administration, successful attacks on the United States and its interests overseas have dwindled to virtually nothing.<< Bob - There seem to be some items missing from the list of successful attacks since 2001. Right away, I noticed that the blogger omitted any reference to Daniel Pearl, whose kidnapping and videotaped beheading in 2002 would seem to qualify as a terrorist attack. I'm guessing there are others he missed. And of course, he completely ignores successful attacks on our soldiers, reporters, and contractors in Iraq. I do agree that attacking Afghanistan and ousting the Taliban disrupted Al Qaeda's activities, and took away a major support structure from them. I always approved of that action. I just wish we had finished it. Among the list of things that "may" have prevented attacks, I see that Intel and law enforcement rank pretty high. I can see no way in which invading Iraq made us safer. I also can't give credit to the Bush Administration for "skillful diplomacy". The Saudis took care of their terrorists because it was in their interest to do so. I wonder if anyone here has mentioned a new book written by the man who was supposedly Osama bin Laden's Islamic mentor. I heard about it on NPR, but don't have the details. The man has decided that the violent tactics he formerly espoused are anti-Islamic as well as being counter-productive. This is part of a growing movement among the most radical Islamists questioning the interpretation of jihad they have been using. Does anyone have the title of this book, or the author's name? In any case, it's quite possible that Islamic terrorism will be destroyed not by us, but from within. - Allen