Calpundit states that Bush should not receive any credit (in so many words) for there not being any recent terrorist strikes:
Of course there were no terrorist attacks here this weekend. There never are. You can click here to see graphically just how rare terrorist attacks in the United States are, both pre and post 9/11.
I agree with him- although I might add that I do think there have been attempts or plans, and our military action has disrupted terrorist cells. However, the most important question is, if, in the even there is a terrorist attack on our soil, will Kevin be the first one to point out that you can not really blame Bush for the attack?
Dodd
You’re quite the optimist to even pose that last question.
Dean
Fascinating.
So, when economies tank or intel failures occur, it is the responsibility of the sitting President (Dubya on recessions and 9-11, frex).
BUT, where successes occur (during Dem Presidents), it’s b/c of the President (Clinton economic boom).
BUT, where successes occur (during GOP Presidents), it’s somehow either false/unfair (Ronnie’s economic boom) or the work of the last Dem President (Jimmeh Cottuh being responsible for the Reagan defense build-up).
Or, to put it simply: Bad things happen—GOP fault; Good things happen—Dem responsibility.
Kevin Drum
Indeed I would, generally speaking. I’ve certainly never blamed Bush for 9/11.
Of course, if there were another major terrorist attack I’d prefer to see the results of an investigation before making a judgment. However, considering how vehemently Bush has blocked any investigation into 9/11, there’s not much chance of that happening. It does kinda make you wonder what he’s afraid of….
Ricky
Judging from the blogosphere, it appears that he’s shaking in fear of Howard Dean and his 8% national polling.
Romulus
Of course Bush will be blamed if there is another attack, at least by some people. However, the realists understand that there is no 100% effective defense against such things and they will be less likely to blame Bush unless gross negligence comes into play. Luckily for Bush, and unluckily for those who may actually wish something horrible would happen, the majority are realists.
The Mighty Reason Man
Romulus has it right- “However, the realists understand that there is no 100% effective defense against such things and they will be less likely to blame Bush unless gross negligence comes into play.”
Especially that “gross negligence” part…if another attack does happen, people will (rightfully) take a very close look at the Rudman report that just came out.
It may seem unfair to Bush supporters, but while Bush can’t rightfully take credit for the lack of attacks due to the fact that attacks on US soil are incredibly rare to begin with, he absolutely will deserve blame if an attack happens due to lack of attention to the weaknesses and vulnerabilities the report spells out (several of them having improved little since the last Rudman/Hart report prior to 9/11).