Posted on 01/06/2006 6:52:36 AM PST by nuconvert
1,576 Days
Thursday, January 05, 2006
By John Gibson
How do you measure terror that did not happen?
A Web site called Tech Central Station ran a column Thursday by a guy named James Glassman. He opens with this:
"As I write, 1,576 days have passed since the attacks of September 11, 2001, and still there has been no subsequent terrorist assault on American soil."
He then goes into a long rumination about how you assess the fact that nothing has happened in the intervening years and why nothing has happened.
The answer, of course, is that a lot has happened.
Terrorists have been chased down. They have been scooped up off the streets of Milan. They have been kept in secret prisons for special interrogations. And they have been listened to as they made phone calls and sent e-mail even if they were here in the United States.
One Islamist from Virginia is serving a life sentence for calling on his young followers to wage jihad against Americans.
Jose Padilla — pronounce the ls as it turns out — was kept in a hole for three years. Now he's being prosecuted for crimes as a regular old criminal defendant. He's not getting out.
Detainees are on hunger strikes in Gitmo. They're not getting out.
Ramzi bin al-Shib, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and a bunch of others have been tracked down and are in cells.
Others have been spotted from predator drones and have received a hellfire missile.
Fifteen hundred days and nothing has happened. Even though we know Mr. bin Laden and Mr. Zawahiri and Mr. Zarqawi would like something to happen — the sooner the better.
Still nothing.
Glassman concludes, "The terrorists' lack of success is
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I hope this tactic becomes even more popular. It's good news to the tax payers.
Bush's fault.
and the liberals are deeply saddened............
"Glassman concludes, "The terrorists' lack of success is the result of a response that has been aggressive and single minded. It has kept us safe. We tamper with it at our own extreme peril."
Mr. Glassman is right."
Game...Set...Match!
Any questions, Dims?
It's kind of ironic, but Bush's greatest success can become the Republicans biggest vulnerability.
"It's kind of ironic, but Bush's greatest success can become the Republicans biggest vulnerability."
How so? That up and coming Pubbies aren't as tough on terror as President Bush has been?
No..not at all. But because the Bush administration has been so successful in preventing another attack on US soil, some Americans now have a false sense of security. Just looking at various polls shows how terrorism and Iraq are not always the over-riding issues of the day. Sadly, Bush's success has made naive Americans think this isn't the problem it really is..and thus, they can focus on other issues other than national security.
Yes. I can certainly see that. I know plenty of compacent people in my community. Unfortunately.
This basic statement is utterly meaningless in the context of any discussion about terrorism. If you had sat down at 9:00 in the morning on September 11th of 2001, you would have been able to make the statement that more than 2,300 days had passed since the last terrorist attack on American soil (Oklahoma City).
I have no doubt that the Bush administration is doing a lot of things to address security concerns in the U.S., but quite frankly I don't think we're all that much more secure today than we were on 9/10/01.
Timothy McVeigh did not have an international organization of killers, financiers and sympathizers behind him, unlike Al Qaeda. Nor was his goal the annihilation of America, unlike Al Qaeda, which is dedicated to that purpose. So the correlation between Oklahoma City and 9/11 and the "terror-free" days following doesn't quite hold.
And between OKC and 9/11, major US assets were destroyed with substantial loss of American life - Khobar Towers, US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, etc. We've suffered no such catastrophic loss of American lives, at home or abroad, since 9/11.
Wouldn't the ACLU make them feed them intravenously? We cannot let the poor babies die . . .
There was an attempt to blow up the WTC before 9/11 and after OKC. Just FYI.
Second that, I hear daily that there really never was a WOT - it is all a evil BUSH and Cheney plan for the defense industry to get rich via war profiteering. The loons on the far left even believe the Government was the instrument of the 911 attacks, so what should we really fear? Of course Bush, not the islamofacists. That is the lib thinking process. So in a sense it is correct to say the more successful Bush is in preventing further attacks on American soil, the more it hurts him and even works toward the Impeach Bush and Cheney and Impeach and Demand Censure for Bush-Cheney Misconduct
When there is an attack on the US, no matter how small or large, the Left is going to have a hissy about how Bush isn't keeping us safe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.