Why We Haven’t Been Attacked Since 9/11
Barron’s Alan Abelson comes forth with the reason why the terrorists have not attacked the USA since 9/11.
They didn’t have to:
Thanks to his vigilance, this nation was spared a terrorist attack after 9/11. And so it was, for which we are all profoundly grateful. And only the most vehement Bush-basher would sniff that the real reason for the absence of an attack was that Mr. Bush did such a thorough number on the country all by himself that the terrorists figured, why bother?
No argument that he is leaving an economy in absolutely awful shape. Our budget deficit is ballooning toward the trillion-dollar mark and isn’t likely to stop there. We are mired in the worst recession since the grandaddy of them all in the ’30s; its end is by no means in sight. The stock market after crashing 35% to 40% last year (depending on which bourse you follow) has started off ‘09 on the wrong foot, not an auspicious omen for the year as a whole.
Unemployment is pressing remorselessly higher, housing is a wreck, industrial production is contracting at the wickedest rate in 35 years, the retail business is in the dumps almost across the board. Detroit is about as near to running on empty as you can get without grinding to a halt. There is a whiff of deflation in the air.
Not all of this, obviously, is Mr. Bush’s fault. But it happened on his watch. Not the kind of stuff, we are afraid, that shining legacies are made of.
Tough stuff — and while its not all that far from the truth politically, it is not the full picture regarding the grim reality of National Defense and asymmetric warfare.
The less snarky answer for why we have suffered no further attacks is quite simply, they haven’t tried — yet.
The history of al-Quada is of increasingly spectacular attempts at mayhem and murder. Its going to take them a long time to outdo 9/11. We should have no doubt they are working hard on the next nuclear/biological/chemical assault. Until they can have a body count higher than September 11th, they will lay in wait — and keep working.
>
Source:
Parade of the Basket Cases
ALAN ABELSON
Barrons JANUARY 17, 2009
http://online.barrons.com/article/SB123215043364592063.html
January 17th, 2009 at 9:15 am
National Intelligence Estimate: Al Qaeda stronger and a threat to US homeland
July 19, 2007
The release of a new report Tuesday that says Al Qaeda has reorganized to pre-9/11 strength and is preparing for a major US strike has sparked debate among government officials and observers about the Bush administration’s foreign policy and counterterrorism efforts. The National Intelligence Estimate assessment indicates that the Islamic terrorist organization’s rise has been bolstered by the Iraq war and the failure to counter extremism in Pakistan’s tribal areas.
“The Terrorist Threat to the US Homeland” report focuses on the next three years and is the first report to review the potential for terrorist attacks exclusively in the United States, reports The Boston Globe. The nation’s 16 intelligence agencies began compiling the report last October and completed their assessment in June. Though the report indicated that Hizbullah may become a threat if the US takes action against Iran or seriously threatens or attacks the Islamic organization, the majority of the report focused on the “rejuvenating effect the Iraq war has had on Al Qaeda.”
Al Qaeda is preparing for a major strike against the US, reports the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). The terrorist organization has intensified efforts to insert operatives in the US, however, since the 9/11 attacks only a “handful” of senior operatives have been discovered inside the US. The NIE also indicates that Al Qaeda will deploy nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons if they can acquire them.
President Bush has defended his post-9/11 counterterrorism policies by citing the absence of new attacks on American soil and arguing that terrorists in Iraq present a greater challenge to US interests. The newly released report, however, has weakened President Bush’s argument, reports The Washington Post.
January 17th, 2009 at 9:15 am
come on barry – now that W is leaving, you and the rest of the Bush Bashers will need a new target. Try Hank Paulson!
blaming Bush for what happened on his watch is like blaming Obama for the coming apocalypse in our country: it’s neither of their faults – it was the inevitable result of decades of decadence and they, the terrorists, are always trying. Give W credit for at least one thing – he kept the pressure on them.
~~~
BR: My bad — Bush was a terrific President, he did nothing wrong, and he is in no way responsible in any way for anything that happened over the past 8 years
Thank you for clarifying that !
January 17th, 2009 at 9:34 am
I don’t think Al Quaeda is about murder and mayhem. It is about forcing us to withdraw from the Muslim world. Terrorist behavior is a tactic to that end.
If the political goal is achieved by virtue of our economic inability to continue paying for a world-wide military empire, then the continuation of terrorism would be irrational even to the terrorists.
Bush may have solved the terrorism problem just like he solved the immigration problem.
January 17th, 2009 at 9:40 am
Al Queda was trying to cripple us by attacking our financial center. This strategy was also part of the blind mullah’s game plan. Obviously, with no army, air force, etc, there is no way they are going to conquer us. Therefore, I agree with Abelson. The Bush administration did a much better job destroying us financially than Al Queda. I also agree with Barry that they probably have not tried yet. With 11 million illegals in this country it is difficult to take the “protecting the homeland” propaganda very seriously.
January 17th, 2009 at 9:50 am
They didn’t have to make any more bombs. Once they spent five minutes listening to testimony by Greenspan they knew America was doomed
….that and Cramer
January 17th, 2009 at 9:58 am
Let’s not forget that there have been several averted attacks post-9/11, even if many were on foreign targets. But regardless of that fact, I don’t think it is appropriate to assign fault or credit to one man for something as dynamic and multivariate as the U.S. economy. I seem to recall a post several weeks ago about the models used by banks that were considered to be very ill-coded. I don’t think there would be a variable in such models for “Presidential Actions.” It seems to me that anyone whoplaces so much on the shoulders of one man is taking too simplistic a view of the world: in short, they are a simpleton; of the same breed that subscribed to bloodletting as a viable means of the practice of medicine. I have maintained throughout this crisis that if people want someone to blame, 90% of them could find the answer in any mirror, as they created the demand for more, more, more by taking on obligations they could not fulfill in order to one-up their neighbors and co-workers. Then again, how should we expect such a sophomoric society to understand that their actions have consequences and that the economy neither begins nor ends at the office of President?
January 17th, 2009 at 10:06 am
Just lame filler from Alan and Barry. Congress has already borrowed $100,000 from my household and every standing structure in America. [BR: More like $35,000] They have spent it. Great results. Plan B borrow another $8,000 and spend it.
California is bankrupt. They have borrowed $500B against their $100B revenue and spent in. Great results.
Knock off the BDS and lets talk reducing Social Security and Medicare to sustainable levels. At least Bush tried and off course was blocked by Republicans and DEMOCRATS.
Keep fiddling…..
January 17th, 2009 at 10:07 am
The reason al-Quada has not attacked us since 9/11 is that their mission was to draw the US military into a protracted war in the Middle East which would further tarnish our image in the Muslim world. So once the US invaded Iraq, no further terrorist action on American soil was necessary. They could attack US troops in Iraq with much greater ease than in the US and all sorts of support was there for the asking.
January 17th, 2009 at 10:10 am
Aw come on. Bush was a Hooverishly horrible president, a big spender who wouldn’t know capitalism if it bit him on the ass. But it is churlish not to give his administration credit for 7 years without another 9/11–something NO ONE would have predicted in Sept’01.
January 17th, 2009 at 10:11 am
Actually, lots of people predicted it.
The military intelligence warnings about al-Queda were for long periods of nothing, followed by attempts at something terrible. That is their MO, it is their history.
January 17th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Paine: The mission of terrorism is not to just kill for the sake of killing, but to do it in a way that induces panic in the populace. They can’t do that overseas. They were just counting that the American people would be weak. They attacked Spain on their trains and the people voted in a PM/President that vowed to withdraw support from the War on Terror. While they may relish the chance to kill American soldiers, they are going about it in a horribly inefficient way. 9/11 took 19 men to kill over 3,000. Now the ratio is probably reversed.
January 17th, 2009 at 10:14 am
“The history of al-Quada is of increasingly spectacular attempts at mayhem and murder. Its going to take them a long time to outdo 9/11. We should have no doubt they are working hard on the next nuclear/biological/chemical assault. Until they can have a body count higher than September 11th, they will lay in wait — and keep working.”
I worry that Al Qaeda isn’t waiting for an opportunity to ‘outdo’ 9/11 so much as a tipping point at which they can push us over the brink. I know it probably seems like we’ve been teetering for some time, but ask the Japanese: the economy is nowhere near as bad as it can get, and I’d be on super duper high alert when we start to hear the first inklings of good news, whenever that happens.
Remember, the two major attacks here in the States both came during the first year of new administrations, AND just as the US economy appeared to be bottoming out. I know, I know, correlation =/= causation, but if it’s just coincidental, those are two incredible coincidences.
January 17th, 2009 at 10:17 am
algernon Says:
“give [Bush] credit for 7 years without another 9/11–something NO ONE would have predicted in Sept’01.
O RLY?
New Window
January 17th, 2009 at 10:18 am
Barry: Where is the blame for Clinton’s severance of all ties between domestic intelligence operations? When the CIA and FBI could no longer communicate, something terrible indeed happened, but as soon as those line were reconnected post-9/11, they were able to catch terroristic acts in the planning phases. So while acts may have been predicted, due to the emasculation of our intelligence agencies, they were unable to know when, where, and how the acts would be carried out, disallowing any preemptive actions.
~~~
BR: That is a different debate we can have another time. This week, President Bush took a “victory lap,” claiming he kept the nation safe.
I think that misstates what actually occurred — IMO, the nation is weaker, poorer, and LESS safe than before.
January 17th, 2009 at 10:21 am
I think algernon is saying that no one would have predicted immediately after the attacks that we would go for 7 years without another attack on U.S. soil. Looks like Barry misunderstood, and maybe Byno as well…although its hard to tell since he didn’t add anything meaningful to the discussion.
January 17th, 2009 at 10:25 am
The financial damage is nothing compared to how badly W shredded the constitution, which is the very basis of what we are as a nation. An Al Qaeada plant couldn’t have topped him.
January 17th, 2009 at 10:29 am
algernon Said:
January 17th, 2009 at 10:10 am
“But it is churlish not to give his administration credit for 7 years without another 9/11–something NO ONE would have predicted in Sept’01.”
________
No one except the NIE and several memos that made their way to the Mr. Bush’s very hand, warning of an imminent attack on civilians by Bin Laden/al Queda, using airplanes, that is.
At the time, dude was talking about going to Mars.
There’s also the matter of suspending law enforcement for the entire period of his administration. No wonder we’re in trouble. Everything from petty graft to outright treason was tolerated.
The Bush Presidency was the abject failure of governance. We’ll be lucky if we can restore our constitutional republic.
January 17th, 2009 at 10:31 am
Wasn’t Lenin that said capitalism would crumble under its own weight? It was Bush, per se, but the hubris his administration brought to D.C. They epitomized much of the hubris our country is known for over its glory years. This made it to blame Bush. One thing it did show is how easily simple minds buy into this mumbo-jumbo.
Now whether terrorists didn’t attack because they were smart and recognized our self-implosion–really? That is just silly. They’d have to have been reading only Fleckenstein, Faber, Grantham, Ritholz, Minyanville… Something that most people evidently didn’t do.
But it is funny in hindsite
January 17th, 2009 at 10:34 am
RamblinWreck:I think algernon is saying that no one would have predicted immediately after the attacks that we would go for 7 years without another attack on U.S. soil. Looks like Barry misunderstood, and maybe Byno as well…although its hard to tell since he didn’t add anything meaningful to the discussion.
Ah, see I thought he meant no one could have predicted 9/11, considering that the Beltway Sniper attacks happened just a year later. Or the US Embassy attacks – technically US soil – that have happened since. Because algeron’s statement isn’t actually true if he’s talking about the last seven years. And if we know one thing about Bush apologists, it’s that they would never stoop to twisting the truth to fit their narrative. Nope. Nosir.
January 17th, 2009 at 10:35 am
Regardless of all these opinions the fact is they hate us for being on their soil. How to get off their soil and let the maniacs kill one another (they hate each other as much as they hate us) should be our number 1 long term priority. Thus the goal of minimizing the need for us to import OIL from them should be our priority. Bush and the neo-cons did not follow this strategy since they want to protect the incumbent big business interests associated with big oil and big defense.
January 17th, 2009 at 10:35 am
Presidents are always lauded or blamed for the economy but have nothing to do with it. It takes more than 4 or 8 years for a bubble to be made or burst. Those that were considered good presidents are usually the ones that created the mess.
January 17th, 2009 at 10:42 am
The readership of this blog has skyrocketed for one reason – credibility. But this post certainly doesn’t add anything to that credibility and in my opinion detracts from it. Very difficult to take someone seriously who can’t give Bush his due on the way that al Queda has been decimated. Does that mean we need to add his face to Mt. Rushmore? NO. His record on the financial crisis is AWFUL. But I can at least sort through the Bush record and give credit where credit is due, and take him to task for the things that he rightfully deserves to be taken to task for. But Barry’s comment above:
“BR: My bad — Bush was a terrific President, he did nothing wrong, and he is in no way responsible in any way for anything that happened over the past 8 years”
That’s really serious discussion. Great work. Thoughtful analysis. (see, anybody can be sarcastically dismissive).
I think this is a great blog – it might be the best on the web. But this post is ridiculous and shows a real achilles heal that BR has. When it comes to Bush, he can’t separate the good from the bad. Even if the number of items on the “good list” is very few.
~~~
BR: The credibility of this blog comes from several factors:
As far as this post goes — that, victory lap notwithstanding, W may us less, not more safe, and that al-Quaeda is plotting something EVEN WORSE THAN 9/11 — I stand by that.
January 17th, 2009 at 10:42 am
Osama thought if the US sent occupying troops to Afghanistan, the US – like the Soviet Union – would crumble due to financial and political turmoil at home. Bush did Osama one better, he also occupied Iraq. Currently, Osama’s prediction seem more accurate than Bush’s prediction of western style democratic revolutions in the middle east being triggered by US invasions/occupations.
Bush’s post 9/11 thrashing around like an bee stung bully, has made him largely loathed in the US, and the US more loathed worldwide, even amongst our allies.
At this point, why would Osama want another massive attack against the US? It would be counterproductive, rallying Americans around an unpopular president and unpopular wars and the world around the US.
January 17th, 2009 at 10:47 am
Instead of listening to ‘experts’ opinions’ on what are al queda’s motives and what constitutes terrorisim et al, I’ll just read directly from their ‘owners manual’ the koran: sura 9:29 ‘fight those who do not believe in allah nor the last day, …until they pay the jizyah tribute tax in submission, feeling themselves subdued or brought low.’ or sura 8:7 ‘allah wished to confirm the truth by his words, wipe out a disbelievibg infidels to the last.’ …until we read the koran and understand that it’s not just al queda, not just hamas, not just hezbolah, not just amadinejad etc, it’s islam stupid! and they will attack again!
January 17th, 2009 at 10:49 am
John Reeder: The readership of this blog has skyrocketed for one reason – credibility. But this post certainly doesn’t add anything to that credibility and in my opinion detracts from it. Very difficult to take someone seriously who can’t give Bush his due on the way that al Queda has been decimated.
Credibility [head asplodes]:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0718/p99s01-duts.html
Oh, and that’s from two years ago. Just because I’m curious, ya think it’s better or worse now?
Keep ‘em coming Dead Enders/22%ers
January 17th, 2009 at 10:49 am
Byno:
DC snipers were not a part of a broader terrorist organization. They weren’t just two players from a US sleeper cell of Al Qaeda, they acted alone. So while they may have drawn inspiration from Islamic terrorists, at the end of the day they were just serial killers. Extrapolation of your definition then, leads us to the fact that all murderers on US soil, especially of multiple people, are terrorists. Ok, I’ll keep that in mind.
US Embassies are technically on US soil even though they are surrounded by soil that isn’t and therefore provide nearly unimpeded access to those who would wish to do harm? Talk about twisting the truth. No one said US interests would not be attacked, but that no attack would occur on actual, physical US soil within the confines of our borders.
January 17th, 2009 at 10:57 am
Barry–Stick to financial issues. I really don’t think you are qualified to make statements on national security topics. You have no extraordinary insight that would allow you to make such comments and they are completely superficial.
~~~
BR: I am a citizen of the USA concerned about the safety of myself and my family. That is all the authority required to discuss whether 8 years of incompetence have made us more safe or less safe.
That you would try to stifle a legitimate debate about national security is offensive. You should be ashamed of yourself.
January 17th, 2009 at 11:01 am
I think everyone here needs to take a deep breath. Read any of the recent books by CIA operatives, DOD people, Robert Fisk of the Independent. etc and people who have studied and worked in the ME for many, many years. The Muslim world feels offended by the West constantly interfering with their lives, dictating to them and stripping them of their resouces, mainly oil.
We, the West, have never considered the ME as anything but our backyard. Read “The Desert Queen” by Janet Wallach to get an idea of how the west has interfered in and probably caused many of our current problems. Fascinating stuff.
January 17th, 2009 at 11:03 am
Um…we were attacked after 9/11. Remember the anthrax attacks? Several Americans died. Several were injured. America was terrorized, conveniently furthering the rush to war.
Why is the lie that we were not attacked after 9/11 being repeated by liberal and conservative alike?
January 17th, 2009 at 11:20 am
** Tinfoil Warning **
Follow the money …
Who benefited from 9/11?
Never did the world see war profiteering on such a grandiose scale before.
Never did the world see the Constitution being suppressed/circumvented as aggressive before.
January 17th, 2009 at 11:21 am
I’m no ‘W’ fan. In fact, I think he has been the worst modern president. However, there is a lot of truth to the argument that US presence in Iraq was a lightning rod that attracted zealots. A lot of the suicide bombers there were non-Iraqis. In fact, dozens if not hundreds. Some number of those persons would have attempted attacks within the US if the Iraq alternative had not been there.
~~~
BR: As opposed to, let’s say, putting enough troops in Afghanistan, tracking down and killing bin Laden, and dismantling al-Quaeda?
Instead, we got rid of the counter-balance to Iran, let them become the dominant power in the Mid-East, oh, and they are a few years from an A-bomb.
January 17th, 2009 at 11:24 am
The biggest mistake that happened after 9-11 is that the American people didn’t get pissed at its government. We spend $500 billion per year on defense, and people at the highest levels of government knew an attack was coming and did little to prevent it. No one was fired over the attacks, and Bush got even more power via the Patriot Act, which he used to attack people he didn’t care for like Elliot Spitzer.
When compared to real threats like the USSR or Nazi Germany, Al Qaeda is a friggin’ joke. After watching the 60 minutes report about how our special forces plan to capture Bin Laden was vetoed, I have to wonder whether people in the Bush Administration wanted to catch really catch him at all. Bin Laden’s plan was not to attack and weaken the U.S. as much as it was to get the U.S. to come to fight a protracted war in Afghanistan, the graveyard of superpowers. That plan seems to be working pretty well. His attack on 9-11 has accomplished his goal, so why waste resources on another?
January 17th, 2009 at 11:27 am
Jumpin’ George on a pogo stick!! There have been terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11!! Anyone remember the anthrax attacks??? The letters that got sent to Sentator(at the time) Daschle and Senator Leahy? And the one to Tom Brokaw? Why hasn’t anyone been brought to justice for those?
January 17th, 2009 at 11:32 am
I’m echoing other comments — I think this is great for financial insight, but it’s better to leave the national security stuff alone. Whoever said that Al Qaeda was trying to “draw” the US into a protracted war is silly. They are a terrorist organization, not an organized military structure.
What they wanted was the same as what Tojo wanted with the Pearl Harbor attack — a swift US pullback from the world, which is not an unreasonable expectation given the pansy-assed responses Clinton had for terrorism during his administration.
January 17th, 2009 at 11:51 am
Look at what occurred since 9/11 –
The US has spent (literally) trillions in Iraq;
The Army is now in terrible shape and Recruiting is awful;
The US has lost tons of respect around the world – Morally, politically, economically and militarily — mostly due to our response to 9/11
I don’t think things could have gone any better for al-Quaeda if bin Laden planned this himself.
Its been a huge victory for the scumbag bad guys, and we ended up with a black eye.
Wake up, stop cheerleading, and analyze things objectively.
(BR, you keep telling it the way it is, and F#$% the W dead enders who live in fantasy land)
January 17th, 2009 at 11:55 am
First off as to Al Qaeda and all of the other umbrella terrorist organizations, if you listen to their rhetoric and then look at how they have infiltrated Europe (through largely democratic, not military means), I think it is clear to say that they are not just about wreaking havoc, but rather want to destroy western civilization and build an empire. Radical Islam is not compatible with the tenets of the west.
To this end, September 11th led to us war efforts (rightly or wrongly) that extended the nation militarily and financially, and also contributed to a recession which led our brilliant central bankers to lower interest rates to ridiculous levels, leading to the asset bubble that has so crippled us. In this way, they helped (to an extent) bring about our economic downfall, and so they probably assume (rightly) at this point that our own actions will lead to our destruction without them having to attack us, at least for the time being. We are our own worst enemy. You can bet that they are lying in wait to pounce however. I discuss these problems amongst others at length here: http://socialistsatthegate.blogspot.com/2009/01/precarious-state-of-nation.html
January 17th, 2009 at 11:55 am
Abelson’s argument is beyond retarded.
Not only are our military assets already stretched thin in two countries, but our econony is in shambles. And politically, the nation’s mood has shifted left of center yet the executive branch, at least in theory, remains ideologically conservative, creating a huge divisiveness of opinion between the governed and the government.
All of these factors mean our country is probably more vulnerable to an attack than ever. Strategically, it would be a perfect time for an attack. But Ableson wants you to believe they haven’t done so because Bush is an inept moron who has handled his presidency so poorly? What a stupid argument.
This is just Ableson piling on the Bush beatdown bandwagon.
I’m sure Frank Rich is proud.
January 17th, 2009 at 11:58 am
National Intelligence Estimate: Al Qaeda stronger and a threat to US homeland
July 19, 2007
The release of a new report Tuesday that says Al Qaeda has reorganized to pre-9/11 strength and is preparing for a major US strike has sparked debate among government officials and observers about the Bush administration’s foreign policy and counterterrorism efforts. The National Intelligence Estimate assessment indicates that the Islamic terrorist organization’s rise has been bolstered by the Iraq war and the failure to counter extremism in Pakistan’s tribal areas.
“The Terrorist Threat to the US Homeland” report focuses on the next three years and is the first report to review the potential for terrorist attacks exclusively in the United States, reports The Boston Globe. The nation’s 16 intelligence agencies began compiling the report last October and completed their assessment in June. Though the report indicated that Hizbullah may become a threat if the US takes action against Iran or seriously threatens or attacks the Islamic organization, the majority of the report focused on the “rejuvenating effect the Iraq war has had on Al Qaeda.”
Al Qaeda is preparing for a major strike against the US, reports the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). The terrorist organization has intensified efforts to insert operatives in the US, however, since the 9/11 attacks only a “handful” of senior operatives have been discovered inside the US. The NIE also indicates that Al Qaeda will deploy nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons if they can acquire them.
President Bush has defended his post-9/11 counterterrorism policies by citing the absence of new attacks on American soil and arguing that terrorists in Iraq present a greater challenge to US interests. The newly released report, however, has weakened President Bush’s argument, reports The Washington Post.
January 17th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
The joke is on us. Aren’t you laughing yet??
http://usa.mediamonitors.net/Headlines/Guardians-of-Mecca-and-Medina-The-Reality
How many of the 911 terrorists were Saudi??
Why waste a bullet on a pig when it’s throat is already sliced??
Trip to Mars indeed….
January 17th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
rww has it about right. They didn’t “hate us because we are free.”
Osama says what he means and means what he says. It’s about getting us out of the Muslim countries, esp. the hejaz, preventing us from dominating Muslim countries, and stopping our support of Israel. After that, we can go f ourselves as far as he is concerned. As he said in one of his statements, we can get out of his crosshairs by complying.
The trumpeting about no attacks within the US is akin to the Japanese bragging about our not attacking their fortress islands in WWII: McArthur was smart enough not to attack the strong points if he could achieve victory in other ways.
Osama, unlike W, has a clear goal and there’s no need to attack the US directly, if he can achieve his goals more easily and cheaply.
The program seems to be moving along quite nicely. Our troops are gone from Saudi Arabia, they soon will be gone from Iraq. We are losing in Afghanistan. And, between our economic problems and the stupidity of Israel’s losing the battle for world opinion by attacks killing thousands of civilians in Lebanon and Gaza, the last objective is getting closer.
January 17th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
BR, I actually needed to walk away from the computer this am as to not blow my top. To say that the terrorist just simply attacked on 9/11/01 and walked away because George Bush was a bad president is not only naive, but VERY wrong.
A simple look back since the attacks on Sept 11th 2001 we can list some of the thwarted attacks (some, because the number probably is larger just not released because of security reasons).
So here is a partial list:
As I said not all are listed, however to say that President Bush did not try and have the best interest of American is just wrong….Also, you belittle the hard work that out law enforcement agencies do every day to stop attacks like the ones listed above… BR you are just plain wrong.
~~~
BR: I did not belittle the work of Law Enforcement, I said this victory lap is wildly misplaced.
And I never said they walked away, I said they are planning “increasingly spectacular attempts at mayhem and murder. Its going to take them a long time to outdo 9/11. We should have no doubt they are working hard on the next nuclear/biological/chemical assault.”
IMO, We are kidding ourselves if we think we are any safer today than we were on 9/10 . . .
January 17th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
BTW, Juan Cole posted what I think is a most eloquent post-mortem of W’s career. It’s a bit long, but I can’t say I disagree with any of it.
http://www.juancole.com/2009/01/ws-twilight-man-of-feeble-temper.html
January 17th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Barry you spend so much time fostering honest economic debate but it appears that your political missives aer just as dishonest. I really don’t care which way you lean politically as you are an astute and intuitve financial blogger but your politics are just bias and have become dishonest.
You should be penning an edit that retracts some of what you said. You don’t like Bush, that’s cool, he deserves it but you like throwing one big liberal blanket over him and then lie that’s not cool. I am sure you can find at least one of these thwarted attacks.
http://www.heritage.org/research/HomelandDefense/bg2085.cfm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,335500,00.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=1599331
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_107948.html
January 17th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Your response to KidDynamite is beneath you. You didn’t used to go in for that sort of thing. Shedlock does the same thing. You never, ever see Calculated Risk or Yves Smith from Naked Capitalism take gratuitous shots at their audience.
~~~
BR: My bad — KidDynamite’s comment was a terrific. He was very insightful, and we are all better off for it
Thank you for clarifying that !
January 17th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
How much has the government borrowed per household, ALREADY and spent?
$10.5 trillion on the books today (actually a bit more)
105 million house holds in 2005. http://www.census.gov/prod/1/pop/p25-1129.pdf on pg 6
$10.5 T / 110 million households = $95,454 borrowed and spent per household.
or $35,000 per person.
In 2009 we will overspend by $1T deficit plus .8T dimulus = 1.8 Trillion.
It will flop….repeat in 2010 $1.8 T
In 23 months, we will have borrowed from my grand kids $3.6 T or ANOTHER $32,727 per household.
Pathetically dim.
Not surprising. Academia can turn a .17 deg F increase in temperature into a global CRISIS.
53.03 degrees F. The 2008 annual mean US temperature per NOAA climate data center
52.86 degrees F. The average US temperature from 1895 to 2008
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html
Watch CA very closely. They have borrowed their $500B (all MOST excellent bond initiatives).
January 17th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Attention Dead Enders:
Here’s a clue: I can tell when a new post generates 30 new registrations and matching comments. Word Press automatically tracks your IP address, prior visits, and previous comments. Its like magic! (only its basic server software technology)
No, you aren’t regular readers (I can tell by the IP Addresses). No, you are not even lurkers. The long time listener, first time caller stuff is utter nonsense.
I am being harsh on those pretending to be sometihng they are not (aka frauds). Technology doesn’t lie — but you SOBs sure do! Thanks for coming by to reveal your political bias and strategic and military ignorance . . .
January 17th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Maybe we are on different computers on the weekend barry. YES
Just because people disagree does that mean we are “dead enders”?? I think your political bias is showing
~~~
BR: And I apologize to those that have a credible, fact based disagreements — I strongly encourage that — versus the trolls that come here to lie.
January 17th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Aww barry you’re afraid of terrorist? I thought you were one of the few intelligent ones in this country… Sure terrorist exist, but their numbers and resources are dwarfed by the US defense system. The only way that “terrorist” will be able to carry out another attack on the US like 9/11 will be the same reason they were successful on that day…
GOVERNMENT FAILURE…. Don’t be afraid of the pakis living in a cave, be afraid of your incompetent government.
~~~
BR: Who said anything about being afraid? I work every day near 4 major targets, it is a choice a long time ago not to be intimidated.
What I did actually say was we are “less safe, not more safe” due to this administration.
January 17th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
equiv – Terrorists will not only be able to attack because of government failure. Terrorists are able to attack because we live in a relatively FREE SOCIETY. It is very difficult to insure freedom and security at the same time. That’s why it is such a contentious political battle. You could have the best law enforcement officials in the world, but if someone is intent on committing an attack in a country where people aren’t under constant surveillance, they will be able to commit an attack. This is not an alibi for the failures of government, but a reality.
January 17th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
ok barry. i AM a regular reader, and i actually usually agree with most of what you wrote.
I am under the impression that you’ve been in NYC since at least 9/11/01, as have I.
To me, Bush’s defining moment was later that week – standing on top of the pile of rubble with a microphone, talking to the clean up workers… I’m sure you remember – one of them said “we can’t hear you” – and he instantly responded “but I can hear YOU – and the people who did this will hear from all of us soon!”
were they the rantings of a lunatic texas cowboy? the liberals think so, and i’m sure you’ll bash that moment too, but to me that was the most important moment of the Bush presidency, and I was EXTREMELY grateful at that moment that we had HIM, and not the robotic, purely political Al Gore. At that moment we needed exactly what we got – a figurehead who was a leader. When he threw out the first pitch at the World Series a few weeks later – standing in the middle of the mound at Yankee Stadium, out in the open, when it felt like he was the number one target in the world – i felt the same way.
Clearly, these simple acts have nothing to do with any of his policies, or the fact that he doesn’t know Sunni from Shia – who cares? how many Americans do? he has people around him to tell him the difference. Who cares if he can’t tell “nuclear” from “nucular” – much like Homer Simpson? W (or any president) does not make decisions unilaterally – blame the system! blame congress!
Back to my point about being in NYC – i can still remember wondering DAILY when the next attack would come – i mean come on – how hard could it be to blow up a bomb in a theater or subway? I, and I don’t think I’m alone, felt it was INEVITABLE. I think this is what Algernon’s comment above meant when he referred to 7 more years without attacks – to me, that was a success.
i hope you’re not calling me a “troll who comes here to lie” – it’s a fact that we have not been attacked since 9/11/01 – not a lie or an opinion. of course, if there is a terrorist attack on Obama’s watch, all the Bush Haters will emerge again and blame him regardless…
-KD
January 17th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
The less snarky answer for why we have suffered no further attacks is quite simply, they haven’t tried — yet.
————–
Don’t be naive.
January 17th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
[...] Why We Haven?t Been Attacked Since 9/11 [...]
January 17th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Personally, I’m a lot more scared of bankers than I am of Muslims.
January 17th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
For the record, I am a new registrant, but have been subscribing to this blog through Google Reader for a few months. I have no idea whether or not I am a Dead Ender. I registered today as this is the first post on this blog where I did not feel that the writer was any more/less qualified than me to offer an opinion.
As far as I can tell, Barry doesn’t have a coherent opinion on this issue. He mentions “asymmetric warfare”, but then also goes on to bash Bush on not catching Bin Laden, and also making Iran the dominant power in the Middle East. This is nonsensical drivel, and part of the “kitchen sink” attack of Bush. It’s Monday morning quarterbacking except that the people who advance these criticisms (you cannot even call them arguments) had no policy prescriptions prior to action being taken, and still have no policy prescriptions! Bush has been wrong on some of these actions, and he has been right on others. He stepped into a very difficult situation, took the actions that he thought were best, and doesn’t give a shit if Barry or anybody else wants to second guess him because the entire time the only alternative proposals were “If Bush is doing it, we are against it.” Bush did what he did because there was no other serious voice to step forward with any alternative measure. To run a country, you have to have “an adult in the room”. The opposition sure didn’t have one prior to Obama (name a single pol who had formulated any of their national security related positions on any criteria other than “how is this going to affect me in ‘08?”). Say what you want about Bush, but when his opposition was hemming, hawwing, changing positions, voting for the war, then against it, against the surge, then for it, BUSH WAS A ROCK.
So sometimes the adult in the room is going to screw up, but it’s better than having the children in charge.
So Barry, thanks for your post. In thinking about it, I regained a lot of the respect for Bush that I lost through the financial mess. It’s impossible to defend the guy on a lot of issues, but I also don’t think that means that you can’t give him credit where it’s due.
January 17th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Perhaps it was a strategic not to attack while W was in office. He has done a far better job of destroying democracy than any terrorist organization. Now that everyone is questions capitalism, What could he do for an encore.
Another thought. I heard part of an interview with Matt Millen, formally of the Detroit Lions. Basically, he figured he’d grow into the position of president. As we find out, he was in over his head. Perhaps, just like W, But once you get there, ya just can’t quit. Especially when your peoples are telling you what a great job your doing. If you look at the last 8 years, it’s been a deer in the headlights. Do nothing so you can’t mess up anything else( Iraq).
January 17th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
As a part time beekeeper, you learn sometimes you have to squash a few bees. Time and time again the lesson learned is if you pause to brush one bee out of the way, you are likely to get 3 more in it’s place.
I would like to put forth the argument that the lives lost in the 9/11 attacks were inconsequential in the overall working of our nation. It was the blind response to it that really cost us lives, energy and a large proportion of our gross domestic product. With that argument in mind I would put forth the proposition that our efforts would be better spent pulling our troops back home from Iraq and Afghanistan and forgetting about Al-Queda. I’m sure if we were to ignore them it would actually put them in their proper place more than anything else we could do. Yes there are things we could do to minimize the threat, things that if you take a long term view also lie in our national interest, like getting a peace settlement in the middle east between Israel and their neighbors, like reducing our dependance on foreign oil, like balancing our trade deficit, and our budget. Beyond that I would say our best interest would also lay in fixing the blame squarely on Bush and his administration’s shoulders, sending them to Guantanamo, or the Hague. But there I’ve gone off into utopia-land and I’d better stop or my other arguments will be discarded.
January 17th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
The source of all military power is economic strength. Are we economically stronger today than we were upon Bush’s election?
Letting a bunch of rag-tag n’ere do wells pull us into wasting massive amounts of money, prestige and lives in Iraq is akin to a lion on the savannah chasing a mouse that bit him until he is so fatigued he can no longer defend himself against hyenas. And we’ve got plenty of hyenas circling in the shadows, awaiting our demise.
January 17th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
In response to everyone that says no one could have predicted 9/11…
http://www.newsweek.com/id/78828
July 30, 2001: “American government outposts and businesses in the Arabian Peninsula are on high alert for possible attacks from terrorists sympathetic to renegade Islamic leader Osama bin Laden, say government officials in Washington.”…..
January 17th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
KidDynamite Says:
“…were they the rantings of a lunatic texas cowboy? ”
No. They were the rantings of a Maine blueblood who used a pathetic and poorly executed Texas/cowboy accent for 8 years.
As for his standing in the smoking rubble of the WTC, he was a fraud before that, he was a fraud in everything he said and did at the time, and he’s been a fraud since.
If you want to get romantic about it, that’s fine – but any President would have done the same under the same conditions and inspired the same reaction.
Do you think the people of NOLA think Bush kept them safe?
January 17th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
BR: I am a citizen of the USA concerned about the safety of myself and my family. That is authority to discuss whether 8 years of incompetence have made us more safe or less safe.
I did not say you didn’t have the authority to discuss Bush’s incompetence and the effects on our safety. I only said that you don’t have the authority to say something like this: “The less snarky answer for why we have suffered no further attacks is quite simply, they haven’t tried — yet.”.
On the contrary, I think that is very snarky answer. With all due respect (and I do respect you a great deal), you really don’t know whether or not there have been further attempts to attack the United States or it citizens. As someone stated before, that would be considered offensive to many people who have worked to try and keep America safe. In my opinion the assertion that the reason there have been no attacks is because they haven’t tried is too superficial, you simply don’t know that to be true.
But this is why you have the comment section. I just disagree. I would not belittle your concerns for safety at all. I certainly think on some morning LIRR rides that all of my neighbors and friends who died on 9/11 had a similar morning, and if it could be the day when the terrorists attack again. Because it would seem New York would always be at the top of the list for targets.
January 17th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
@John Reeder: “Say what you want about Bush, but when his opposition was hemming, hawwing, changing positions, voting for the war, then against it, against the surge, then for it, BUSH WAS A ROCK.”
Call me crazy, but me-thinks this is not necessarily a GOOD quality when one is WRONG time after time after time. Bush is done. Let’s move on please. The mere topic of this man makes me want to hurl. It’s time for him to go into exile.
January 17th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Yes, I have lived and worked in NY and the NYC area my whole life.
My offices was HQ’d in 2 WTC, and thankfully on 9/11 I was in the LI branch.
I’ve written about this in the past. (See this: http://www.geocities.com/ritholtz/bpr.html )
If you feel safer, good for you. I don’t. I simply see us as more vulnerable financially, strategically, politically. and militarily than ever before. And I believe that the President for the past 8 years bears much of the blame for that.
January 17th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
ok. understood.
yes – i’ve read your Sept 11th story… have you read mine?
http://fridayinvegas.blogspot.com/2006/09/5-years-later.html
January 17th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Just because I disagreed with your assertion that there have been no legitimate attempts at attacking the US does not warrant you telling me I should be ashamed of myself. I’m pretty sure you aren’t my father. BR I really enjoy reading your blog (which I do everyday you can check my IP address or whatever) and I think you are great , but that was just straight insulting.
January 17th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Well, let me just start by saying, it’s nice to see BR jumping into the pit and throwing a few punches.
My favorites:
Darkness Says:
The financial damage is nothing compared to how badly W shredded the constitution, which is the very basis of what we are as a nation. An Al Qaeada plant couldn’t have topped him.
10 cc Says:
Personally, I’m a lot more scared of bankers than I am of Muslims.
The Bush administration’s legacy is the complete failure of Justice and accountability. In my mind, there is no other way to see it. His response to 911 was bankrupting the country and attacking two countries that none of the hijackers actually came from (15 were from Saudi Arabia). Then did everything in his power to give ownership of our ports to the UAE (2 hijackers from there). Remember how he wanted to privatize Social Security? WTF happened with Gonzalez? Did we even have a justice department on his watch? Did he secure our borders? Or was it more important to have a cheap labor force?
With defenders of the Constitution like W, who needs enemies?
January 17th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Two things:
Which previous president DIDN’T keep us safe from a large scale, foreign-born, successful terrorist attack on domestic soil during their administration? That’s right, there has only been one, and that was dubya’s administration.
and
*cough*ANTHRAX*cough*
January 17th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
@ Tidervan,
“until we read the koran and understand that it’s not just al queda, not just hamas, not just hezbolah, not just amadinejad. it’s islam stupid! and they will attack again!”
Spoken like a true neo-conservative bigot – fearmongering at its best – I know, we simply have to kill them all to save God’s children…. Guess we better not piss off the Jews or the Christians, either, because their holy books says:
“You will chase your enemies, and they shall fall by the sword before you. Five of you shall chase a hundred, and a hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight; your enemies shall fall by the sword before you.” Leviticus, Chapter 26, verses 7-9
“When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations…then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them and show them no mercy.” Deuteronomy 7:1-2,
“…do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them…as the Lord your God has commanded you…” Deuteronomy 20:16
Stupdidity carries in its seed its own special danger….
January 17th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
mark mchugh is right on. Great comments!
The reson we haven’t been attacked since 9/11 is that “we” WEREN’T attacked on 9/11. If you disagree with that and label me a tin foil type, then show me your proof. No, newspaper opinion pieces from government sources don’t constitute proof.
Plain and simple: It was cost effective to let some crazies (with lots of help from the Air Force) do this to stampede voters into giving the reptilians carte blanche for government spending and control. The same bastard reptilians wanted to nuke Iran and couldn’t because we the peanut gallery were getting too noisy. Now they are being more direct with a straight massive monetary theft for the rich. These are the same rich that benefit from wars and havoc in general.
I’m happy to say that all these finely tuned scams are falling apart because we the marks finally get it. You rich bastards need us to obey and spend. So now we are becoming frugal and ornery.
A lot of rich people are going to jail soon. Your lies and your money won’t save you.
~~~
BR: You really think that the same crew that couldn’t illegally fire half a dozen lawyers for political reasons orchestrated this entire thing, with no evidence, no witnesses, nothing?
Really? That’s the best you have?
January 17th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Poll Finds Disapproval of Bush Unwavering
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/17/us/politics/17poll.html
President Bush prepares to leave office with no evidence that public opinion toward him is softening during his final days in power, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
When asked about Mr. Bush’s performance over the last eight years, 22 percent of respondents said they approved. That matched Mr. Bush’s job-approval rating for much of last fall, the lowest of his presidency. In the current poll, 73 percent disapproved of his performance over the course of his two terms.
Disapproval cut across party lines, with Democrats, independents and even 34 percent of Republicans critical of Mr. Bush’s performance.
In contrast, Mr. Bush’s most recent predecessors left office with approval ratings ranging from 68 percent, for both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, to 44 percent, for Jimmy Carter. Mr. Bush’s father left with 54 percent.
When asked to assess Mr. Bush’s presidency more precisely, just 17 percent of those surveyed rated it very good or good, while 83 percent said it had been average or poor. Fifty-nine percent of Americans regarded Mr. Clinton’s presidency as very good or good when he left office, and 40 percent viewed the presidency of the elder Mr. Bush the same way.
The public’s assessment of the president’s handling of both the economy and the war in Iraq was markedly negative. Seventy-seven percent disapproved of Mr. Bush’s management of the economy, and 71 percent faulted his handling of the war.
In surveys that began with Gallup polling in the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Mr. Bush has the distinction of being the president with both the highest and lowest approval ratings. The highest, 90 percent, was recorded shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
The campaign against terrorism is one area in which he continues to win a measure of support from the public, with 47 percent approving of his handling of the issue and 48 percent disapproving. Republicans were particularly supportive of him on the subject of terrorism: 87 percent approved of his administration’s actions to fight it.
Still, not only do Americans disapprove of the overall job Mr. Bush has done, but record numbers also have an unfavorable opinion of him personally. Six in 10 of those surveyed said they viewed him negatively, while about one-quarter viewed him favorably.
Americans’ historically negative assessment of the administration is not limited to the president. Vice President Dick Cheney’s favorability rating in the new poll is 13 percent, the lowest of his time in office.
January 17th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
@Scott F: As evidenced by some of the comments on this blog post, it seems that the 22%/17% are going down fighting. Well done my lads!
But hey – at least they’re ROCK SOLID in their convictions and don’t waver like those other squishy, namby-pamby 78%/83%.
January 17th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
I don’t comment on this site as there is no reason for anyone to listen to my comments on macroeconomics. The majority of other posters on this site are far more knowledgeable than I when it comes to the world of finances and economics.
There seems to be a lot of confusion when it comes to defense policy or terrorist organizations and planning. I have worked for the US government in an intelligence capacity for over a decade. I speak Arabic and have read the Quran in its entirety. I have spoken one on one with Al Qaida personalities in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Philippines and several other countries.
To simply dismiss everything that has been done in the fight against organizations such as Al Qaida in the last eight years as inconsequential or detrimental in the grand scheme of things is as naive as when W claims total victory for a lack of homeland attacks. We have been aggressive in seeking out those who wish to do us harm with both successes and failures.
There are those on this site who seem to think a simple pull-out of the middle east would acquiesce the extremists who planned both the bojinka attack and the 9/11 attack. Those who believe this to be true have no understanding of the Quran or the steadfastness of those who strictly abide by it. The Quran, written by the Prophet Muhammad as told to him from the archangel Gabriel explicitly states that Islam is the only true religion. Muhammad was tasked with creating a worldwide Islamic Caliphate. The world cannot be at peace until this has been established. Those like Ayman Al Zawahiri who follow the words of Muhammad know that we are currently at war because the rest of the world has not embraced Islam (the west) or is corrupted and does not follow true Islamic Law (the middle east governments). These men will not simply cease their operations because we have pulled out of the middle east. They believe they are following the will of God and will not stop until their goals are met.
Whether you believe the west should meddle in the middle east or not is up to you and your political opinions, but you are sorely mistaken if you believe groups such as Al Qaida and Hamas will leave the west be should we return to our side of the globe.
January 17th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Barry, for such a sharp guy, your simplistic answer in this piece is surprisingly naive. If one uses secure intelligence to penetrate a network of malefactors and it work, he doesn’t run around bragging about how he stopped them. Rather one, just quietly goes about his business. In today’s self-promoting world, this may be new, but it’s the way the military intelligence profession works. So neither you nor I have absolutely no idea of what has been prevented–or if we do, our security clearances prevent us from disclosure. In addition, good defense generally works through strong deterence. That is most likely the case here as well as these guy realize they now put themselves and their friends at risk.
With regard to the economy I think anyone laying this debacle at the door of Bush now matter how bad he was is also very naive, and I know you aren’t that naive. This problem started with the Kennedy administration’s permissive attitude on structure fiscal deficits (Paul Johnson – Modern Times). It continued with Reagan’s borrow and spend, and then went into over drive under Clinton, where Goldman alum #1 Rubin, helped to create a small dollar bubble, where the peace dividend was frittered away during a period of declining interest and where the tech bubble (the largest since the Depression) was created and encouraged (unless you believe Al Gore invented the internet in his solar powered hot house), and where derivatives grew out of their infancy into respectability with benign neglect. Had Clinton’s bubble not been so big both the Fed and the gov’t wouldn’t have had to try to get us out of it.
Bush’s bubble, with Goldman alum #2 Paulson, was the supernova, but that could be replaced by a black hole in the Obama administration with the amount of money printing that will go on for questionable value. The inflation that is created with this effort, redoubled since Bush, will probably create even more damage. I see very difference so far from Obama’s real approach than what Bush was doing, particularly given his status quo Treasury nominee and tax cheat Geithner.
Why pile on and give the press and others the opportunity that this was caused by Bush, when it was the Government/Fed/financial industry complex.
I love your stuff, but please get real. Smart people actually respect your intellectual honesty.
Pat McKim
January 17th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Haven’t read all of the comments but there is proof that Bush knew of possible attacks on US soil (one scenario was using hi-jacked airplanes as weapons). But, Clinton had some of the same info. It just happened on Bush’s watch so IMO he’s somewhat responsible.
OT: I blame Bush and Co for all of the other problems in the US. He hired all of these stupid-shit experts to run the country which probably hurt 75% of the US citizens in one way or another. My god, I never finished high skool but I could see in 2004, talking with friends about how many might be in trouble while watching Las Vegas real estate prices go to the moon. A friend got a loan and he was only paying the interest (which now he could afford a new GMC truck), didn’t think that was a very good idea. Who made all of this possible? … Bush’s appointed dumbasses… that’s who. Boy, Greenspan retired just in time, he saw what was coming.
January 17th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Oh, forgot to add I’m still unemployed due to Govt. cutbacks. 1st time in my 30+ years of working. They don’t have the $$$ to replace aging air traffic navigation systems. Imagine that.
January 17th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
I think I’m getting sucked into some theories I’d rather not discuss, so let me clarify my stance:
I believe it takes a village to raise a child, so when said child grows up to fly planes into buildings, I blame the village. Had it been my call, as soon as the hijacker’s identities were discovered, I would have bombed the places that germinated them, trying to approximate a thousand deaths (give or take) for each monster these burgs produced. So, instead of being the hero that attacked the Great Satan, you are the shithead that got your town bombed.
And while saint may enjoy his cloak and dagger lifestyle, I’m pretty sure my methods would be infinitely more effective, and a whole lot cheaper. The message I’d being trying to send is, “control your crazies, or face extinction”. When you start saying, “yeah but, it isn’t really the Saudi’s fault…..” I consider your reasoning skills convoluted (to put it kindly).
This way when a kid starts talking smack about America, hopefully they’ll find a very short leash…..
January 17th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
I’ve got a more controversial idea to put forward….
What if there just aren’t THAT many extreme terrorists with funding out there? Let’s face it, there’s millions of people that hate the Western World, in particular the U.S. of A. But, how many people out there really have so much insane hatred that they want to organize major terrorist acts? There certainly are plenty of car-bomber types out there willing to give their lives for the greater good, but how many of those people have the capability to execute a really serious attack?
I think the media and neocons have done a great job creating a sense that we’re constantly vulnerable to all sorts of attacks at all times. If we weren’t collectively scared shitless about everything, why would we fund the military industrial complex? Homeland Security? CIA?
It’s very easy to attack the U.S. in ways that would be VERY harmful to our system: think key pipelines/refineries/electric grids. In fact it’s so easy to attack the U.S., I’m left with with the following conclusion:
There’s just not that many terrorists out there logistically capable of pulling off a large scale attack; our modest defenses are good enough to prevent the average car bomber from crossing our borders.
To be honest I had never considered the possibility asserted by Abelson: “Why bother?” It’s a legitimate response that I must now consider….
January 17th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
@AT: I’ve heard that argument before and think it has a lot of credence. The promotion of fear has distorted everything all around us in recent years.
January 17th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
@Saint, We are not dismissing it, we are saying what was done was wrong. You can point fingers at all the stuff career operatives have done for the last eight years, but torturing people, ignoring the Geneva conventions with respect to prisoners of war, spying on our own populace, throwing out basic civil rights. In my opinion career operatives were getting paid they had to do something, so big deal they went to work each workday, noone cares about that. they should have been standing up for what’s right even if it cost them their jobs.
@Mannwich, Exile is too easy, Bush, Rummy,Cheney,Gonzales and others of his administration should be sent to Abu Ghraib. Their wives and children should be sent to Gaza, and left to fend for themselves.
@kiddynamite, I don’t care if you were in the building when it happened, Compared to the thousands of dead soldiers we’ve sent to Iraq and the permanantly wounded that have to live their lives handicapped, not to mention all the dead and wounded Iraqis, because we obviously didn’t care about them. Your experiances of 9/11 are trivial in the overall scheme of things. The fact that you still think about it is a bit quaint, but really you should get on with your life, there are a lot of veterans with way more severe post traumatic stress disorder.
January 17th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Barry,
No, that not all I have but we are all limited by our experiences and prejuduces so nolt everything is”put out there”. That said, I’ll mention some things I consoder proof. My fellow air traffic controllers from Boston Center clammed up tighter than pressure sealed vaults after 9/11. I was with the Federal Government for 20 years as an air traffic controller and later on as a computer systems analyst. We’ve got procedures for highjackings. The explanations about Norad and Boston Center reactions were pure bullshit. Swallow the bullshit if you want but I won’t.
The other piece of circumstantial evidence is PNAC (project for the new american century). They called for a new Pearl Harbor (Perle, Cheney, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, et al). Didn’t you watch how composed and on message these guys were right after 9/11? They knew it was coming. Remember the congressman in fron of the capital during the anthrax attacks saying” We are okay and in charge” . This guy was clearly rattled and putting on a brave front. That’s the way innocent people behave. Rumsfield, Cheney, Bush et al were incredibly composed. This is NOT normal behavior for Bush (especially language challenged Bush).
Look, I’m not going to convince you. You were there in NYC and could have been kiilled so you took it personally. Try to think like someone smart who wants to hurt the US. This is NOT they way they would have gone about it. It was STUPID. It was like a deer throwing rocks at a lion. Give me a break here. WHO BENEFITS?
January 17th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Bush was asleep at the switch when 9/11 happened. AWOL. Pickin his nose.
He should have been impeached for gross negligence the next day.
Instead he was allowed to lead us into a fiasco which has created thousands if not millions of new enemies we didn’t have before, and we will all have to live with the consequences of that for the rest of our lives, and our children after us, and their children after them.
January 17th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Sorry for the typos but this subject sends me into a rage.
Also this whole idea of being the biggest badass that no one will fuck with you is so barbaric and civilization destroying that it’s a wonder we aren’t a dictatorship. Disproportionate force does not breed deterrence. It only breeds escalation to pure genocide. So we end up with one tribe after that tribe has killed all the others off. Congatufuckinglations to all you badasses. I’m shaking in my boots.
January 17th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Bob A,
Bush was NOT asleep on 9/11. He was celebrating the trifecta. When they dig up all that was said and done during the first year of the Bush/Cheney dictatorship, you will neeed antideprassants just to get up every day.
January 17th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
going broke,
Did you work on VOR or ILS systems? I think they’re trying to stick everything into the aircraft and satellites. RADAR techs should still be needed though.
January 17th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
larster: ” Al Queda was trying to cripple us by attacking our financial center”.
The economy was in a swan dive heading straight for a depression in august of 2001. Without 9/11, could Greenspan have justified sending the rates to 1%? Nine/eleven SAVED the financial interests! Think about it. Rerun the history in your mind without 9/11 and watch what DOESN’T happen. How would the massive leveraging by hedge funds and financial center banks for derivatives have been possible with 6% interest rates. The real attack on our financial system was
initiated after the rates hit 1% The bastards at GS and the other greedsters were the attackers and betrayers of our country. They’re the ones who STILL need to be prosecuted because they are still destroying our country. The Muslims are a straw man; they are and always have been small potatoes.
January 17th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
@AGG
I use to work for Raytheon but now work for a company that I can’t name online. Not a secret but because of papers I signed. I’ve worked at about 75% of the FAA sites in CA, HI, AZ, NV, NM, TX, Guam, American Samoa and smaller islands. Mostly groundwork on new ATCT’s and RTR’s. Worked at VOR, VORTAC, and some ILS. Installed 3 major STARS systems and probably 15 smaller ones. Sometimes do work at ASR’s and ARSR’s. If they need something done, ETVS installed, lightning protection, D-BRITE removal, anything that needs to be installed at TRACON’s and CERAP’s… you name it, I can do it or get it done. But since Bush became Prez, funding to other regions other than his own (TX and surrounding states) has been slowing down.
Most ATCT’s I worked at in the last few years, I’ve noticed the controllers we being forced to work overtime. LAX is lacking manpower and I believe Palmdale center is also. Don’t seem like a bunch of happy campers them controllers. You probably got out when the gett’n was good. Hope so.
January 17th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Andy Tabbo for the win.
When you think about how easy it would be for a small number of people to wreak havoc, as long as they don’t care about living or being caught, it is fairly remarkable that it doesn’t happen more often. Look at what happened in Mumbai as an example — 10 bad guys made a worldwide scene.
The simplest response to why it doesn’t happen more in the US is that there aren’t that many people willing to sacrifice their lives in the name of whatever their crazed cause might be.
Nevertheless, we overreacted to 9/11 and wrecked ourselves in the process.
The biggest thing that makes me crazy is that we have lost over 4,000 lives, over 20,000 wounded, will spend ~ $3 trillion, have killed at least 100,000 Iraqi civilians, and have displaced several million other Iraqis — all to install a pro-Iran government.
What the heck is up with that? I concur with Gen. William Odom’s assessment that the invasion of Iraq was the biggest strategic blunder in the history of the US.
That is not keeping us safe. That will not keep us safe in the future. That was entirely stupid. It is not defensible.
January 17th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
@Mannwich – Hopefully you understand that my position is not that it is always correct to be stubbornly unchanging in the face of proof that what you are doing doesn’t work, but rather that we are now a nation of Monday morning quarterbacks. JFK wrote a book called “Profiles in Courage” which detailed pols who had made political decisions that they knew were political suicide in the name of principal. I can’t look at our current political landscape and find even a handful of pols who are capable of the type of tough decisions JFK wrote about. So when I say Bush was a rock, I am giving him credit for having fortitude that is rare today. I know that fewer people today consider fortitude a virtue than they did when JFK wrote the book. I suspect that Obama is one of the rare ones with fortitude as well, and that it is one of his qualities that people really respond to.
January 17th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
@John Reeder, Noone is playing football here. Football is a spectator sport, and it’s rather tame. You want to hear my Monday morning quaterbacking? -Send in a couple lions and watch how fast your favorite team can run!
The problem we’re talking about here is the real world is often like a chess game, not like a football game,
not like poker, yet Bush worked the job like he was playing checkers.
I still stand by my original argument that the events of 9/11 were inconsequential, and it was our own reaction to it that made it such a big mistake. I haven’t heard any arguments here that come close to refuting that.
January 17th, 2009 at 11:46 pm
hey wonton
guess you forgot to read the rest of the book, find me some similar quotes in the new testament; mohamed just copied deuteronomy and other old testament books with some additional violence thrown in; by the way the crap you quoted was directed at jews in a historical context, the koran directs its mandates on all muslims…
January 17th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
ps to wonton
the answer is to convert them to atheists or agnostics, my personal favorite…
January 18th, 2009 at 12:28 am
There aren’t that many terrorists. It took Al Qaeda from 1993 to 2001 to mount a 2nd major attack. Was that because Bill Clinton kept us safe? There has not been another attack on “US soil” simply because (a) Al Qaeda can’t mount significant attacks 12,000 miles away with much higher frequency and (b) they don’t have to.
OBL drew upon his experience in Afghanistan on how to defeat a much more powerful foe: draw the superpower into the region and bankrupt them. Take the statement “we fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them here” and just flip it: Al Qaeda doesn’t have to attack the US here because Republicans put our troops and our money onto OBL’s home turf, where we could waste away our diplomatic, financial, and military capital.
The neoconservatives and most Republicans have yet to learn the meaning of “discretion is the better part of valor”. They lost a military campaign to Osama bin Laden! At this point, the only way for Bush and Republicans to proclaim any kind of “success” is to move the goal post:
>> “No attack on US soil!! No attack on US soil!!”
Yup. First, they cherry-picked the intel. Now, they cherry-pick the success criteria.
Yeah, you Bush-lovers mean well for the US and the world. *I know that*. Sincerely, I mean that. But, you did not think this problem through. You lost a military campaign to a terrorist executing the same game plan he played against the Soviet Union. Very sad.
And very predictable. This is not Monday-morning quarterbacking. Just because you couldn’t see it doesn’t mean others couldn’t. I was telling friends in 2003 that:
(a) The invasion into Iraq would be a cakewalk.
(b) WMD would not be found.
(c) An insurgency would develop after a lull, after the Bush administration — thanks to the arrogance of and ill-planning by Bush and, thus, the people he chose to help him — created the conditions to cultivate it.
So, for anyone who wants to criticize what I had to say, think back to your own predictions/beliefs in 2003-2004. If you didn’t predict what would happen correctly, then consider the possibility that your “view of the world” differs meaningfully from “reality”. Consider developing a new model or using different data inputs — i.e., stop listening to the pundits & “news” organizations who steered you wrong 4 years ago.
By the way, I also predicted:
(d) Bush would win re-election in 2004.
(e) The surge would work.
So, you see, I’m not a “stopped-clock” libral who just wants to bash Bush and happened to be correct a couple of times in the day.
Now, if only I could predict what would happen next. At this point, I cannot. I spend less time reading politics any more and spend more time trying to protect my meager nest egg. Also, predicting what Obama will do and how the world will react is much tougher than predicting what will happen when you put-a-bull-in-a-china-shop, which is how easy it was to see what Bush would accomplish.
January 18th, 2009 at 12:32 am
We are less safe now, because we are poorer and if we get attacked again, it will have more to do with oil going below $30 than Allah.
Let’s try to remember that before pissing away another $10 Trillion.
January 18th, 2009 at 12:37 am
Some of you are talking about the Koran and its edict to kill non-believers. My understanding is that the 1st of the Ten Commandments in the Bible urges this as well. No?
If so, then let’s migrate to a moral code that does away with reliance on the scribbles of people living in a time when “fire” was appreciated but not understood.
January 18th, 2009 at 1:06 am
going broke,
Yes I did get out in a timely manner but I had my share of “fun” with some near mid airs.
As for your situation, good luck to you. There’s going to be a bundle of money coming down the pipe for the new smart electric grid and you might latch on to something there. With your knowledge of elctronics and, more importantly, the maintenance of field equipment, I expect you’ll do all right.
January 18th, 2009 at 2:22 am
@wunsacon
The Quran doesn’t necessarily dictate the killing of non-muslims. It does dictate the world to be ruled under Islamic Law. Non-believers have the option of converting or living under the Islamic Caliphate alongside muslims. There are a few caveats such as being second class citizens and paying taxes , but the goal of persons such as Sayid Qutb, Usama Bin Ladin and Ayman al Zawahiri have been the establishment of a worldwide caliphate.
The information regarding the lull between 1993 – 2001 is inaccurate. Between 1993 – 2000, Al Qaida intensified its operations with the attacks against the US embassies in Africa and the USS Cole. In addition, there were the thwarted Bojinka and millennium bombings that were to take place during that period as well.
I’m not here to sway anyone’s politics but to correct the confusion that seems to be portrayed as factual information. There are many talking heads on television that continue to reiterate information that is grossly inaccurate. The west knows very little about Islam, the middle east and the thought processes of the people who live here.
January 18th, 2009 at 9:37 am
@wunsacon Says: January 18th, 2009 at 12:37 am
Some of you are talking about the Koran and its edict to kill non-believers. My understanding is that the 1st of the Ten Commandments in the Bible urges this as well. No?
no.
#1 states You shall have no other gods before me
That is between God and man. That is not a mandate to enforce the first commandment
Later He says:
You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me,
*Generally* He takes care of those who reject Him Himself. Some could argue some counterpoints on that general principle from the Bible but then this thread would stretch to four times as long and be way off topic
January 18th, 2009 at 9:58 am
@ saint: Thanks for the clarification. But, I meant “lull” in attacks on US soil. Certainly, according to the Bush administration itself, there’s been no “lull” of al Qaeda attacks since 9/11 on US interests, including US soldiers, US civilians, US property, and US allies.
@ How Common Man: Thanks for the clarification. And you’re right about the danger of expanding this thread! It would end up being a Big Picture record.
January 18th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Barry,
I think you are dead right and it is clear that you are using the same mind you use to make investing decisions to evaluate the evidence here.
One idea I find particularly ridiculous is the notion that Bush 43 brought something special to the nations defense in the aftermath of 9/11, as if any other President wouldn’t or couldn’t defend America. The idea is ridiculous on its face but it has entered the medias sphere of consensus so that people have one solid nice thing to say about Bush on his way out.
The irony is if Bush’s overall record was a bit better there would be a more balance discussion of his FP record (which is abysmal) then there is now.
Don’t ever change BR.