ANSWERS: 35
  • I feel like this question: http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/476036 answers your question. Not that it's a duplicate, but I think how the linked question was worded answers for how I feel! :P
  • The terrorists have realized that we are doing quite well destroying America by ourselves thanks to George W. Bush. Why need terrorists bother to blow up any more buildings when, merely by blowing up the WTC in 2001, they have caused Americans to give up their civil liberties, their self-confidence and everything else that once made America so great? Mission accomplished, eh Dubya?
  • No. On the defensive side, he has only done what any President would have done - and in my opinion has not done it very well. The reason there have been no attacks is that Americans have been willing to pay, in cash, in time and irritation, and in loss of freedom, for much tighter security. The reasons no terrorists have got through is because of thousands of security men, police men, intelligence agents etc. across the country. Congress authorised the spending, the President only administered it. And on the offensive side, the Iraq war ensured a goodly supply of plotters for the next few decades. They haven't got through yet, because of the enhanced security. But given enough tries, eventually someone will succceed - and Bush has ensured many more triers.
  • No GWB does not get the credit. The President only delivered the message to the American Public after his staff of advisors worked out a plan. Our men and women in combat and our intelligence agencies get that credit. Unfortunately the President must take the blame for any part of the plan that was ineffective or turn out to be the wrong move.
  • If we blame him for the negative things, it only seems fair to give him credit for the positive.
  • We haven't been physically attacked. We have, however, had to spend an amount estimated near $500 BILLION dollars. I'm sure much of that is due to contractor negligence, misinformation, etc.
  • You know- you can spin it any way you want, but the reality is WE HAVE NOT BEEN ATTACKED, while many of our allies in Europe (Britain, Spain) have been severely attacked. I have no trouble giving the Bush administration some of the credit for that.
  • Since 9/11 there have been no Zombie attacks on the US -should President Bush get credit for this?
  • After what he has done, I wouldn't give him credit for tying his shoes.
  • You bet as they were scared of him.
  • I seem to hear the occasional story of our troops getting attacked in Afghanistan and Iraq on the news. Is the media spinning that to discredit President Bush?
  • i think so.
  • No, this is absolutely nothing to do with anything that Bush did. In fact Bush's regime did not stop a single attempted attack, not one and remember that the one attack that did take place, where over 3000 people were killed, happened on his watch. Furthermore 9/11 happened after Bush and his cronies specifically ignored the intelligence and warnings they were given.
  • There have been no terrorist attacks on Spain since they withdrew their troops from Iraq and tried the persons responsible in public trials. Should the Spanish government get credit for that? On the other hand, US intelligence agencies say that Bush's policies made global terrorism *worse*! http://articles.latimes.com/2006/sep/24/nation/na-intel24 Does Bush get 'credit' for that?
  • Is he taking credit for the one on 9/11?
  • I believe so! Despite the bad things people said of him, he was not at all a bad president! Did anyone ever notice the winks he'd give when speaking? That was sweet, and showed the kind human side of him. I will never forget Bush, I miss him very much!
  • Nope, not at all! What he has "done" has had nothing to do with why we are no longer attacked.
  • Sure...if he also gets credit for any imminent attacks that occur, which were being planned for several years due to the hatred he inspired all over the world... Right, lets bomb these guys. Now lets bomb those guys even though they had nothing to do with anything. Now lets destroy that country's economy; of course this kind of "human chess" couldn't possibly have long-term consequences to national security... [Sarcasm], in case any neuroscientists here couldn't figure it out.
  • Of course he should, he took it to the terrorists in a proactive way and now they can't organize like they used to, but the Liberals will never give him credit because they have Bush derangement syndrome.
  • I'm not so sure about credit, but he could possibly negotiate a discount
  • He should perhaps get credit for delaying an attack here. That isn't the same as stopping one. What he actually did was just delay one from happening and made it more likely to happen again in the future and also made it more likely that when it does happen it will be far worse than 9/11.
  • No. I don't like the idea of the US killing more than a million people each time it gets 'attacked' in order to prevent future attacks.
  • We hadn't suffered any attacks before 9/11. Should Clinton get credit for that?
  • In terms of the defense of the Nation, there has been much accomplished that the average citizen doesn't even consider, nor are they even aware. Same for the enemy. We are not nearly as weak or as vulnerable as we were back in 2001. While in office, Bush pretty much told the enemy that if they attacked again, the pain and penalty to them would be forthcoming. He kept his resolve and never apologized for his reactions to 9/11, notwithstanding the internal and external criticisms. Essentially, Bush said "Don't mess with me!", and they haven't. As for President Bush "getting credit"...I say, In time...in time. I doubt he's having sleepless nights waiting for it...at least I hope not. BTW....Thank you, Mr. President. For our sake, I hope and pray Bush's successor will do as well.
  • Yes, but he won't.
  • No. Because technically any attack upon our troops is an attack upon the U.S. And we've gotten plenty of both, in Afghanistan, and Iraq (where we didn't need to go.). Why try to sneak into a country, when you've got a much shorter trip to a neighboring country to attack Americans?
  • There have been plenty of attacks on U.S. interests. There have been no attacks on U.S. soil, but they weren't that common anyway. Why don't we just credit Bush for the lack of terrorist attacks between Oklahoma City and 9/11 too? By pissing people off who previously weren't piss off (not at Americans anyway), Bush's policies have made attacks more likely in the future.
  • Not necessarily. Maybe the terrorists are biding their time and waiting until we are no longer on the alert. Now mind you, I don't hide under the dining room table waiting for another attack, but we shouldn't get too complacent.
  • I don't think the credit for plots foiled should go directly to him, that credit rests with our counter terrorism agencies and alert members of law enforcement agencies (to include federal, state, and local). The credit he deserves is for the facilitation of these people doing their jobs. His policies on this paved the way to success, but without those with boots on the ground being proficient, there very well would have been multiple attacks by now.
  • Was it terrorists that attacked the World Trade Centre?
  • No, because he dropped the ball on 9/11. The towers were already attacked in 1993, so the 2nd attack on the towers happened on his watch. He gets no credit, unless you give Clinton credit for not getting attacked again on his watch...
  • He was warned about terrorists planning to attack the U.S. by flying planes into buildings..months before 9/11. He and Rice ignored the warnings. He is responsible for 9/11 because had he read the reports and acted on them he could have prevented the attacks. He gets all the credit for that as far as I'm concerned..he, Rice, Cheney and all their cronies who were so smart and so very "on top" of everything that they didn't even bother to read the intelligence reports that they had available! :) Happy Monday to you!
  • It's almost impossible to prove a negative. We'll never know whether attacks would have happened if Bush hadn't been President. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
  • Yes, god bless you GWB
  • I'm unclear, as GWB, Cheney and various others vigorously exclaimed their efforts were keeping us safe out of one side of their mouths, while at the same time warning us the next attack could come at any moment out of the other side of their mouths.

Copyright 2018, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy