Obama’s Legacy Depends on Security, Security, Security (Updated)
John on December 27, 2009 at 9:57 am
For all the sturm und drang about the Patriot Act and “torture” and the end of Western Civilization in general during the Bush years, there was one thing Democrats never had to complain about. We never had another serious terror attack on American soil during his tenure. We did have a couple incidents of “sudden jihad syndrome” but these appeared to have been small time efforts with no international backing.
But all that seems to be changing in the era of hope and change. Though it sometimes seems much longer, Barack Obama has only been President for 11 months. During that time he has had two major strategies in Afghanistan and “reached out” to dictators in North Korea and Iran. He has made nice with FARC funding, would be dictator Hugo Chavez, talked about ending our hostile relationship with Cuba and talked tough to Israel. One would think all that effort at resetting American foreign relations would have paid some dividends by now. And in a certain way they have. The terrorists seem to have been emboldened.
Dividend 1 – Major Nidal Hasan murders 13 at Fort Hood.
Dividend 2 – The Christmas Day underwear bomber tries to blow up an airplane bound for detroit.
There is ample evidence that Major Hasan was a domestic terrorist and was in connection with an al Qaeda recruiter now in Yemen. It’s still not clear why he was promoted just six months before his rampage, even though the FBI was aware of his contacts.
And it also appears that the failed underwear bomber was another radicalized Islamic rich kid who had contacts through Yemen to al Qaeda. According to ABC, “Officials now say tragedy was only averted on Northwest flight 253 because a makeshift detonator failed to work properly.” In other words, Christmas day could have been the second most deadly terror attack on US soil in history. It would have been if not for some failed technology, a watchful stewardess and some quick acting passengers.
America got very lucky. In fact, we should probably consider this a Christmas miracle. The question is whether we can continue to be this lucky if the attacks continue at this pace. At this rate, will we make it through 2012 without another major attack on Americans soil? Frankly, I’m not sure we’re going to make it through 2010.
Right now the administration is doing a “hard pivot” from the health care disaster to a new jobs program. The President is eager to present himself as focused on the issue in time for his State of the Union address. May I be the first to suggest that, had the underwear bomb gone off, Americans would not be solely focused on jobs, jobs, jobs right now. They would be focused on failure, failure, failure — the pathetic spin from Janet Napolitano notwithstanding.
While it remains true that Obama’s legacy will depend in large part on the economy, one hopes his administration hasn’t lost sight of the even greater concern of national security. Obama’s effort to present himself differently than Bush abroad seems, so far, to have benefited us very little. Indeed the rate of attacks on the US seems only to have increased. The President should take note of that now. His legacy –and to a great degree that of his entire party — depends on it.
Update: Oliver Willis takes me to task for, well, better let him say it:
I’m not really interested in the overall thesis, the faulty idea that we and our allies weren’t attacked after 9/11 – as if bombings in Bali, London, and Madrid weren’t aimed at the west, not to mention the Anthrax attacks. But it is this conservative insistence that 9/11 didn’t happen on Bush’s watch or that somehow he gets a pass for it. Bush was 9 months into his presidency, he didn’t just show up that day for work. 9 months into his tenure, George W. Bush had already had more Americans killed via terrorism than any other president in US history. Almost a year into Obama’s presidency, Bush’s sad record remains.
So I say there wasn’t another serious attack on terrorist soil and Oliver’s response is that a) 9/11 was under Bush’s watch and b) terrorists attacked other nations during Bush’s watch.
He’s right about the second point of course, but then I did specify terror attacks on “American soil.” That attacks happened elsewhere but did not happen here doesn’t help his case so much as it helps mine.
As for the first part, yes George Bush had been President nine months when 9/11 happened. We all wish that the FBI and NSA had done a better job during those months, but it’s hard to see how the failure rests squarely on Bush. The fact is that few people in the US were alert to the serious danger presented by terror prior to that day. It was only after 9/11 that we began to take the threat seriously as a nation.
The fact remains –and it’s not surprising Oliver has no interest in discussing this part– that President Bush prevented another attack during his remaining 7 1/2 years in office. Put simply, we were all shocked the first time, but there’s no excuse for a reprise. Will President Obama, who after all was elected in large measure on his promise of resetting American foreign policy, manage as well as his predecessor. The short answer is probably not.
Category: Politics |
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Verum Serum, Pro-Life Healthcare . Pro-Life Healthcare said: Obama's Legacy Depends on Security, Security, Security http://bit.ly/7oCTYX #healthcare #prolife [...]
December 27, 2009 @ 10:19 amYeah, Obama could have 5% unemployment and 5% economic growth, but if he looks like he doesn’t care about American safety in the face of al-Qaeda attacks, he doesn’t get re-elected. Ergo, no gleaming Age of Barry ‘legacy’.
December 27, 2009 @ 11:10 am[...] Politico Live’s Blog, CNN, YID With LID, Verum Serum, RedState, The Strata-Sphere and The Jawa Report [...]
December 27, 2009 @ 8:30 pmThe attacks happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush’s policies didn’t reduce terror, he just cut their travel expenses.
We had more attacks than ever. Daily!
December 28, 2009 @ 6:51 amIf one starts with the premise that NObama is a muslim intent on bringing this country down from the inside, everything he has done and said to date makes sense.
December 28, 2009 @ 6:53 amIf one starts with the premise that Bush was a Christian intent on bringing this country down from the inside, everything he has done during his term makes sense.
Because that’s what his policies did.
Of course, you’d also have to assume that he was some kind of master-mind who could enact every policy he planned perfectly. He’s not. Neither is Obama. It’s more likely that presidents try to do what they think is best for the nation and often it doesn’t work out perfectly.
December 28, 2009 @ 7:18 amOh, Kevin, your comment is just precious.
It’s also a sign of selective illiteracy.
December 28, 2009 @ 7:19 am[...] 5, 2010 · Leave a Comment From the conservative blog Verum Serum For all the sturm und drang about the Patriot Act and ‘torture’ and the end of Western [...]
January 5, 2010 @ 2:18 amWhat about the 2001 anthrax attacks? Five people died.
What about Richard Reid?
And why did we have to wait until 9/11 to get serious? The first World Trade Center attack wasn’t enough? Cole wasn’t enough? Bush gets a free pass on 9/11 because, well, just because?
January 8, 2010 @ 9:14 amM.G., I don’t think the Bush Administration should be absolved of blame for 9/11. I don’t think John does either. There were dots, in hindsight, that could have been connected in the months and weeks leading up to the attacks. The 9/11 Commission highlighted these, as well as the institutional failures related to intelligence gathering and sharing that enabled them.
But I think you may be missing the thrust of John’s point in that he is comparing the POST-9/11 posture of the Bush and Obama Administrations. Whereas I think few could seriously doubt Bush’s commitment to national security after 9/11, there are numerous reasons to question where this has ranked on the list of priorities for Obama.
And it is very troubling that we’ve had 2 attacks now within the past few months, both of which could have been averted.
January 8, 2010 @ 9:42 amTroubling, yes, about recent attacks, but I must confess that I am getting annoyed with the Republican talking point about “no terrorist attacks under Bush” (which I think Dana Perino literally said recently.)
There was 9/11, anthrax, and Richard Reid. We need to be forthright about history.
January 8, 2010 @ 9:52 amI also consider Jim David Adkisson to be a case of domestic terrorism. Two people died that day.
January 8, 2010 @ 9:56 amAnnoying, but predictable right? National security has been the signature issue for Republicans since 9/11. It wasn’t a Republican who talked about making us safer by closing Gitmo and restoring our reputation throughout the world. It wasn’t a Republican who decided to refer to our war against Islamic extremists as “overseas contingency operations”.
This kind of talk has done nothing to make us safer. If you ask me, it has signaled to our enemies that we are losing our resolve. They are in this for long haul – are we?
January 8, 2010 @ 10:04 amWe’ll see the long-term trajectory of Obama’s change in rhetoric. He may well end up being a sub-par President.
But then, that’s beside the point. My point was quite modest. The Republic mantra of “no terrorist attacks under Bush,” is not true, period.
January 8, 2010 @ 10:33 amHow can people be getting this confused? It’s a simple question. A poll would look something like this:
Post 9/11, when considering terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, based on the evidence, should people feel more secure living in Bush’s America or Obama’s America?
The argument that Bush and the incoming administration dropped the ball is not in play at all; it’s outside the parameters of the question. POST 9/11!
It’s a good question. A better/more sensical argument instead of “Bush dropped the ball too” would bring civil liberties into the picture i.e. “I don’t feel safer because now I fear my government too.”
It’s sad when conservatives have to help liberals out with their arguments.
January 8, 2010 @ 1:08 pmHere’s a current example to demonstrate that not every conservative is repeating the mantra that there were no terror attacks under Bush:
http://tinyurl.com/y8jnzan
Although I guess this also supports your point, in that Giuliani DID make this claim…but then Ed from Hot Air should be commended for refuting it.
January 8, 2010 @ 1:13 pmBoth Reid and the anthrax attacks happened within 3 months of 9/11. The country had just entered a war in Afghanistan. It was still a full year before the Department of Homeland Security was established, reorganizing the government to meet the threat. The ship of state is an ocean liner, not a speed boat.
The point is that since that initial wave of attacks, we have not had another significant plot succeed on US soil…until the last two months in which we’ve had one succeed and one very nearly succeed.
Frankly, it doesn’t matter whether you or anyone else likes it. Obama’s legacy will be his ability to prevent future attacks. If he fails, everything else will be forgotten and he will be a one termer. If he succeeds, as Bush did, he will be increasingly hated for it by the same people who hated Bush and for the same reasons. This has already begun to happen. Closing Gitmo, even if he manages to do it, will not satisfy the far left.
January 8, 2010 @ 1:24 pmEd mentions the DC sniper. That’s arguable I guess. He certainly was a terrorist and a Muslim, but I don’t believe anyone has ever connected him to al Qaeda, have they? So let me clarify it this way…
Obama says we are at war with al Qaeda. He said it this week.
Since 2001, we have not had another successful al Qaeda backed terror plot on US soil. Since Obama was elected we’ve had two plots, one that resulted in 13 dead and one that nearly resulted in 300 dead. This is not a good trend and if it continues, much to MG’s horror, Americans will soon be pining for the good old years of the Bush administration.
I will say that this is one area where I sincerely hope Obama succeeds. I believe he can, but only if he’s willing to break with a core of those that elected him, i.e. the anti-Bush, anti-war, token-Peace-prize crowd.
January 8, 2010 @ 1:36 pmI concur. Hopefully this was the wake up call needed for them to tighten things up. I still think Napolitano should go. She can’t seem to get through a single interview without demonstrating that Al Qaeda has not been a top priority for her organization.
I’m sure she takes the threat seriously to some degree, but I think she is too distracted with other social policy goals.
January 8, 2010 @ 1:51 pmHave I said anything about horror? I noted that there seems to be a talking point about the absence of terrorist attacks (Guiliani, Perino, etc.) That’s all.
Please don’t ascribe beliefs, motives, etc. to me that I have not expressed. That’s the courteous thing to do. Thank you.
January 8, 2010 @ 4:01 pmWhy am I not surprised that M.G. is running his pro-Obamanure slant here at V.S.. Three months after 9/11 not one thing happened in America that could be attributed to terrorists. Bush took it serioulsy. On the other hand, Obamanure has had 11 months and has failed miserably. He’s too concerned with destroying our helathcare system than to worry about those silly, smelly, little towelheads.
January 8, 2010 @ 9:22 pmRe:21
Huh, I thought I just wrote that Obama could end up being sub-par. Regardless, I’m no Obama cheerleader.
Jim, as a favor to me, do you mind not using terms like “towelhead?” Even if you think it’s just fine, could you cease using it as a courtesy to others? I would appreciate it. I imagine John, Morgen, etc. would as well, but I don’t speak for them, obviously. Perhaps they think it’s no big deal.
Thank you.
January 10, 2010 @ 12:41 pmTowelheads = first amendment.
January 11, 2010 @ 4:14 amRe:23
No, not really. Offensive speech here is not controlled by the First Amendment, it’s controlled by John and Morgen. They can ban you if you want.
Plus, I was asking simply as a courtesy. That’s all. In my opinion, it would be nice of you not to use that language out of consideration for others.
In any event, I wish you and this blog all the best.
Farewell.
January 11, 2010 @ 8:02 amI suspect Obama’s legacy will be that of Health Care Reform.
August 23, 2010 @ 3:16 pm