Why does Bush get credit for no "terroist attacks in US since 9/11?"

[keithyboy]

The first WTC bombing took place under Clinton in 1993. There were no more "terrorist" attacks in the US (unless you count OKC) from 1993 until 9/11/01. The 1993 culprits were apprehended, arrested, and sentenced. I never heard the Republican praising Clinton because there had been no more attacks within the US during his two terms. So what is all this praise about "no more terrorist attacks since 9/11?"

The logic escapeds me and I think I will scream if one more pundit like Woodward makes that statemnet. Do they ever stop to think about what they are saying? You mean to tell me that because the so-called terrorists aren't attacking us 24/7 this is a reason to give Bush credit and to feel that we are safer because of this administration and the Patriot Act? Give me a friggin break!! :grr:

[Spinzonner]

1. They didnt think they needed one yet

If the administration keeps unraveling, however, they may reconsider.

[The empressof all]

2. Who gives him credit

The media---Well they are idiots.

[Vickers]

3. Yeah, but the one he DID let slip by....what a doozy!

"But, but, but...I was only in office for 8 months!!!!!"

:nopity:

[ThePandaBear]

5. There have been terrorist attacks sinse 9/11?

Has the media forgotten the antrax cases?

[keithyboy]

6. Touche!

I forgot.

[ClassWarrior]

4. What?? What about the anthrax mailings?...

Or is this an admission by the wingnuts that they themselves were responsible for the anthrax attacks?

[soggy]

7. Lets see how quickly they change their tune...

when bush's approval is hovering in the high 30's in august and their "predicted summer attack" kills a few more thousand u.s. civilians.

"no terror attacks since 9/11" will quickly morph into "now is not the time to even THINK about questioning our great president! and 'sides... he DID warn us!"

watch...

[vetwife]

8. Pllllllleeeze.. Bush and co are still here. They are terrorists ! IMO

[gumby]

9. Josh Marshall

I just luv this quote from Josh...

......His emphasis now is seldom on what good might come of his Iraq policy but rather the dire consequences of its unmitigated 'failure' or its premature abandonment.

In other words, the president now argues that he is best equipped to guard the country from the full brunt of the consequences of his own misguided actions, managerial incompetence and dishonesty.