Are We Safer Today?

Beats me.

Bush has taken a page from Sharon's play book. When everything is on fire, poor gasoline on it and call it fighting terror.

Intel Officials Have Bleak View for Iraq

Yes.

No attacks on our homeland since 2001.

Creation of Homeboy Security Dept has helped somewhat

More effective CIA and FBI and local intel gathering.

Are we as safe as we can be? NO!

Joe Conason
The New York Observer
09.15.04

A misbegotten diversion; a monumental tragedy
Three years on, Bush still hasn't caught bin Laden


"Dead or alive."
Those were the three words that came to mind on the evening of Sept. 11, as I looked south from my block at the spectral shafts of light memorializing the lost Twin Towers and the people who died when they fell. That old cliché, which merely sounded callow and theatrical when uttered by George W. Bush, has since taken on deeper significance. In a nation fearful of terror and facing a fateful election, the President's forgotten vow now stands for terrible mistakes that will continue to endanger us, even if he someday fulfills it.

Although the atrocities perpetrated by Osama bin Laden three years ago were denounced repeatedly from the podium of the Republican National Convention, the name of the perpetrator whom the President had promised to bring to justice dead or alive was mentioned just once. (Governor George Pataki made that sole reference, in a fatuous attempt to blame the prior administration.) Perhaps the convention's producers didn't wish to spoil the October surprise. More likely they prefer not to draw attention to the fact that the Saudi mass murderer remains at large, planning to strike us again and rebuilding his organization as it slaughters innocents from Madrid to Istanbul to Baghdad.

The President has never explained why he allowed Mr. bin Laden to escape from Afghanistan. There may be no self-flattering explanation. For despite his characteristic bravado -- and indeed, despite a quite inspiring speech to a joint session of Congress the week after the 9/11 attacks -- Mr. Bush flinched from decisive action when he had the opportunity to destroy the leadership of Al Qaeda.

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=17669

What kinda thinking is that? There were no attacks on our homeland between 1993 and 2001, either. Did that make us safer? Did it prevent 9/11, which happened on GW's watch? That argument, which I have seen elsewhere many times so I am not attacking you, strikes me as the weakest argument of all for why we are safer. Why does that make you feel safer?

Who are you defining as "we"?

Bush is the best friend the terrorists have and the terrorists return the favor by giving him the issue to stand on for his reelection. Are we safer today absolutely not?

Good point.

Squinny says - What kinda thinking is that? There were no attacks on our homeland between 1993 and 2001, either. Did that make us safer? Did it prevent 9/11, which happened on GW's watch? That argument, which I have seen elsewhere many times so I am not attacking you, strikes me as the weakest argument of all for why we are safer. Why does that make you feel safer? "

That thinking is simple logic. Is there another way to measure SAFE other than the facts as presented today?

The US Govt was "asleep at the wheel" during the years prior to 9-11. The 9-11 comission report reflected those facts. Many of the recommendations by the Commission have been put in place as well as other measures as I described in my prior post.

Yet as I said prior, we are not as safe as we should be.


"

That's on the order of my elephant repellant. I keep a jar of my patented elephant repellant on my desk, here in the heart of Ohio. I've never seen any peritpatetic elephants in this area--ipso fatso, sozyeroldman, this repellant is 100% effective . . .


(Goofy emoticon for the comprehension impaired:)

Eh, a good point? More like ridiculous rhetoric.

I think we are safer today than we were sept. 10th. If nothing else, we are more alert to possible attacks and we have done many things to ensure an event like 9-11 does not catch us by surprise. In that sense, we are indeed safer today.

We are not safer.

Setanta



I am afraid it was wasted on McG

Yeah, AU, and it seems the goofy emoticon didn't help, either . . .

au, I am very familiar with Set's elephant repellant as I keep a small sachet of Klingon repellant in my desk.

Now, two things to be aware of;

One, Set posted as I was replying.
Two, What I said has nothing to do with what Set said. Please keep your patronising directed towards those that desire it.

I think we are not safer...and I think we are much LESS safe.

But while I place some of that at the feet of this incompetent administration with its counterproductive efforts, the fact is that no matter who was in charge...the threat simply has to get much, much worse before it has any chance of getting better.

In any case, I think this is an appropriate time to mention something that seems blatantly obvious to me:

When the time comes for our troops to evacuate Iraq...the situation will make the evacuation of Saigon look like a cake walk!!!!!

Which is my way of saying that our troops (a part of the "we" in Squinney's question) are much, much less safe.