View Poll Results: Would a devastating al-Qaida attack on America during the current administration spel

Voters
22. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    6 27.27%
  • No

    13 59.09%
  • Other - explained in post

    3 13.64%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: 9/11 revisited

  1. #1
    wʜɪтe яussɪaи Tashah's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    ישראל אמריקה
    Last Seen
    05-12-14 @ 02:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,379

    9/11 revisited

    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 by Tashah; 05-17-09 at 08:44 AM.

    אשכנזי היהודי Белый Россию

  2. #2
    Liberal Fascist For Life!

    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:43 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    86,412
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: 9/11 revisited

    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.

  3. #3
    User
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    07-11-11 @ 04:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    78

    Re: 9/11 revisited

    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.

  4. #4
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    15,422
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: 9/11 revisited

    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.
    "Loyalty only matters when there's a hundred reasons not to be-" Gen. Mattis

  5. #5
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    09-25-16 @ 03:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,183

    Re: 9/11 revisited

    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 pussyfist(pacifist+ pussy 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
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  6. #6
    Your Huckleberry
    Lachean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Somewhere in VR
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,360

    Re: 9/11 revisited

    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.
    Who left the fridge open?

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 11:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: 9/11 revisited

    Quote Originally Posted by Tashah View Post
    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.

  8. #8
    Sage
    bhkad's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Last Seen
    08-13-10 @ 11:01 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    10,745

    Re: 9/11 revisited

    Quote Originally Posted by Tashah View Post
    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.

    OBL 11/24/02

  9. #9
    Sage
    kaya'08's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    British Turk
    Last Seen
    05-12-14 @ 11:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    6,363

    Re: 9/11 revisited

    Quote Originally Posted by Tashah View Post
    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 by kaya'08; 05-17-09 at 04:23 PM.
    "If religious instruction were not allowed until the child had attained the age of reason, we would be living in quite a different world" - Christopher Hitchens
    > Good to be back, but I'm only visiting for a few weeks. <

  10. #10
    Traditional
    hiswoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Last Seen
    04-04-13 @ 03:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,051
    Blog Entries
    10

    Re: 9/11 revisited

    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.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •