• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

9/11 revisited

Would a devastating al-Qaida attack on America during the current administration spel


  • Total voters
    20

Tashah

DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,233
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
Bush & Cheney et. al. posit that their greatest accomplishment in the nearly eight year administration span following 9/11 was in protecting America from a second devastating attack by al-Qaida.

The question here is simple (or is it?). Would a devastating al-Qaida attack on America during the current administration spell disaster for Obama and/or the Democrats in 2012?

{edit: The entire Poll question is in bold above}
 
Last edited:
Multiple point answer incoming.

1) Taking credit for only having one worst ever terrorist attack in the country during his watch is not exactly a great legacy for President Bush. This is especially true since there is no proof that anything he did stopped another such attack.

2) A 9/11 type attack would probably give the opposition to President Obama ammunition, but I think, like following the first 9/11, that most people would come together and not think politics.

3) The politics of terrorist attacks saddens me. Using fear as a political tool(yes, I am talking about you Vice President Cheney) is also very sad.
 
recent moves by the Obama administration seem to reflect an awareness that Bush administration tactics were on track. Most of us see another attack as a matter of time. Obama seems to be taking a prudent course.
 
Depends entirely on their response IMO.

Oh Limbaugh and Hannity and the others of right wing radio would certainley jump on to say "I told you so", and some of their listeners would agree. I would not and here's why......

Thus far, I haven't seen any substantial difference between Obama and the previous administration when it comes to whats considered necessary to thwart terrorist attacks. Its not as if Obama has dissolved any of the previous admninstrations newly created bueracracies that were given life post-9/11.

The difference will be the response. Would Obama aggressively pursue the offending party, and eschew international borders(if the governments were uncooperative) in order to placate the American need for revenge? Would he seek to affect even more change in the region, via all channels to include military operations, in order to effect real change in the cultures that have been breeding these terrorists, or would he simply seek a diplomatic solution with the terrorists and/or their state sponsors?

The only answer that keeps him in power, is Obama striking out of revenge. Americans no longer have the stomach nor the patience for long term military engagements overseas, not to mention newfound economic concerns about our spending. So Obama striking at terrorists, and then trying to affect change with another ME regional player would be out the window. His own party might turn on him. However, Obama cannot be seen as a weak leader, and if no military response(or a minimal military response ala Clinton-esque airstrikes) is taken, and he negotiates with terrorists and/or their state sponsors he will be seen as a weak leader by middle America.

I guess I got taken with discussing "terrorists" in general, and your question asked about "al qaeda" specifically. In that instance, I think he would have to strike within Pakistan. I don't think most people would support a full on occupation of Pakistan, but I also think its an action that couldn't go unpunished. If he did either one of those(occupation or unpunished), he'd have some 'splainin' to do to middle of the road America. He would really just need to capture and kill a bunch of them, to sate the revenge emotion of America. Because of the economic conditions, combined with a weakened American resolve, he couldn't afford to take drastic measures to combat terrorism and keep his job.
 
I would have to say it depends. If they sit around and do nothing or only do sanctions then yes it will spell disaster for the democrats because the opposition will paint them as a bunch of *****fist(pacifist+ ***** yeah I know its putting two synonymous words together) who don't give a **** that terrorist have attacked this country. If they enact another patriot act it might get them shot down as hypocrites.

As long as there is military retaliation and it is done within a certain period of time and its not done during a major a scandal then it would help the democrats
 
I think its a bit ridiculous that people assume you've been kept safe so long as there are no attacks, and should a single event occur then your guardians have failed you.

Sometimes, even if everything possible is done to prevent it, bad things happen. Also, even if nothing is done proactively, and no such event occurs; the enemy could simply be biding their time.

To use the deaths of Americans for the political gain of your party is disgusting. Should some knee-jerk "I told you so" go off in my presence during an attack, he'll probably get punched in the mouth.
 
Bush & Cheney et. al. posit that their greatest accomplishment in the nearly eight year administration span following 9/11 was in protecting America from a second devastating attack by al-Qaida.

The question here is simple (or is it?). Would a devastating al-Qaida attack on America during the current administration spell disaster for Obama and/or the Democrats in 2012?

{edit: The entire Poll question is in bold above}

IMO, no, America would rally behind Obama just as they did behind Bush.

Obama, like Bush, would then use his political capital to push through an existing agenda, which the American public would later come to regret.
 
Bush & Cheney et. al. posit that their greatest accomplishment in the nearly eight year administration span following 9/11 was in protecting America from a second devastating attack by al-Qaida.

The question here is simple (or is it?). Would a devastating al-Qaida attack on America during the current administration spell disaster for Obama and/or the Democrats in 2012?

{edit: The entire Poll question is in bold above}

It would absolutely spell disaster for this country and for the Democrats to the degree that Democrat policies veered from Bush/Cheney policies.
 
Bush & Cheney et. al. posit that their greatest accomplishment in the nearly eight year administration span following 9/11 was in protecting America from a second devastating attack by al-Qaida.

The question here is simple (or is it?). Would a devastating al-Qaida attack on America during the current administration spell disaster for Obama and/or the Democrats in 2012?

{edit: The entire Poll question is in bold above}

Depends how the Democrats approach the entire situation. If they then decide to invade a random arab country with an Al-Quada presence in retalliation to the attack like Bushey in Iraq then yes, it will make them look crappy in '12. The country may rally behind Obama as Jerry stated, but the American people will soon come to the realization that the war has prooven to be the wrong move and really part of a larger agenda and thats when the vote loosing begins. It happened to Bush.
 
Last edited:
I think it would depend on how the aftermath was handled by the Obama administration. I think people would initially come together the same way they did before.
 
I voted "No".

Regardless of the warnings received from Extremists and Homeland Security, a terrorist attack of the scale of 9/11 would act in the same way 9/11 proper did. People would rally.

I do not think even Michael Weiner, Limbaugh, nor any other 'Bamaer Bashers would live through the public repercussions of openly criticizing the Gov't at such a time.

Terrorism is a tool that can be utilized by both "good" and "bad". Terrorism is magic with many masters.
 
There's no way a terror strike on US soil could not spell disaster for the current administration.

Moral philosophies aside, the current administration has taken a stance on how detainees at Gitmo should be handled, and how confronting terrorist organizations in the world should be done. That stance has as its foundation a repudiation of the policies of the Bush administration.

If that repudiation is followed in short order by a terrorist attack, I cannot see how the criticism of "at least Bush kept America safe" is to be avoided. The current administration acknowledges that the policies of the Bush administration produced actionable intelligence; the distance from that acknowledgment to the conclusion that those techniques allowed US intelligence and military personnel to thwart terror strikes aimed at the US is very short. Those policies have been set aside, and if a terror strike slips through, especially if an after-action analysis reveals that a detainee might have information that could have allowed the US to stop the attack before it started, question the wisdom of that choice is almost reflexive.

Further, the argument of the current administration has been that the policies of the Bush administration have left America less rather than more safe. A terror strike during the current administration is a direct and substantial challenge to that argument.

A terror strike on US soil at once knocks down every pillar supporting the current administration's foreign and homeland security policies. As the ones who put those pillars in place, the current administration will not easily dodge accountability for their seeming failure.

The collapse of Neville Chamberlain's government in the early days of WWII, after he having famously proclaimed "peace for our time" right after Munich, is an instructive example of the political price paid for being wrong in matters martial.
 
It would really depend when it happens and what are the policy changes the Obama Administration does. I'm afraid I am biased enough against Obama and his administration that I could not think clearly on it. Bush was not blamed over much since he had only been in office 9 months and while Al-Quieda was a known concern, not many in the intelegence community had an idea that 9/11 or somthing analagous could occur. Obama on the other hand, has the situation that yes we now know to a large extent what they are willing to do and their capablities. He would get simular cover if a terrorist strike happens in a unexpected way.
 
There's no way a terror strike on US soil could not spell disaster for the current administration.

Moral philosophies aside, the current administration has taken a stance on how detainees at Gitmo should be handled, and how confronting terrorist organizations in the world should be done. That stance has as its foundation a repudiation of the policies of the Bush administration.
I do not agree that it is a repudiation of the Bush strategy, especially at the foundation.
I believe that the Obama plan, on confronting detainees, is only aesthetically different. Obama tears down Guantanamo and will build another prison to "hold" the detainees while they are undergoing trials.
In a court, I do not believe that the detainees will be as protected by international laws as the Obama administration says (nor do I think the administration will interfere). These terrorists will be tried by Americans and their fate will be determined by Americans.

If that repudiation is followed in short order by a terrorist attack, I cannot see how the criticism of "at least Bush kept America safe" is to be avoided.

I think if there is to be a massive terrorist attack the outcries of the dissenting voices of "at least Bush kept America safe" will beast the voices of the current administration using the terrorist attack to it's advantage (banding people together, waving American flags, finding a source to channel frustration). I think the phrase will quickly be dealt with by an all too familiar ideal of bi-partisanship.

There will be blame put on intelligence agencies, as the Bush admin did.

A terror strike on US soil at once knocks down every pillar supporting the current administration's foreign and homeland security policies. As the ones who put those pillars in place, the current administration will not easily dodge accountability for their seeming failure.
i agree with this point. The aesthetic appeal of Obama's administration's foreign policy will erode like an Appalachian river-bank after a foot of solid rain.
Though I do think the administration is crafty enough to dodge accountability. It is a grand characteristic of all administrations!
 
We must always remember these words of James Madison:

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
 
No. Of course not.

Absolutely nothing bad that happens while The MESSIAH is president will be the Democrats fault.

The media won't allow it to be that way.

There's always Rush Limbaugh.
 
Back
Top Bottom