I don't usually talk quite THIS long as I am about to. So feel free to skip over parts if you must. Otherwise, I'd appreciate you trying to hear what I say, this time, as opposed to waiting for me to stop talking so you can shoot my logic down. Honey, I've ALREADY shot it down and it keeps coming back up in my mind. So I'm going to get it all out and THEN invite some discussion on the topic as a whole instead of asking people to either assemble pieces of what I've said in the past or make me assemble things YOU'VE said in the past and pretend that you or I have a clear picture of oneanother.

One final disclaimer before we start; You'd think that as much as I have thought about this topic, I'd be better able to articulate it. I'm doing my best, but I'm also not in the mood to cover EVERY SINGLE BASE in this diatribe. If you think I have missed something important and germane to my take, just ask me if I had considered it. I'm telling you right now, I will tell you the truth about whether or not I had and how much weight I gave it.

8 months into his first term, we got hit with the attack on Sept. 11.

Given the relative nature of our comfort level with things at the time - and in spite of reports with pretty specific titles warning us aginst this very kind of attack - I have a hard time blaming Bush for not seeing it coming. I just don't. It could have easily been Clinton's last 8 months where it happened. That's my opinion and judgement call. I'm not married to it - but I think I have heard and read and seen enough to not saddle him with it to the degree that some like to use in order to suppliment their own dislike and distrust for him POST 9/11. Another opinion of mine is that using the fact that one feels the need to do just that ( blame Bush for 9/11 ) is unrealistic to have seen as clearly as if oft implied if not outright shouted. I've heard the cases against Bush, I just don't see it that way. It was an attack that was well executed and exposed many holes in our security that lulled us into a false sense of security.

Mind you, I am only talking about pre 9/11 policies and defensive plans that were in action.

Assuming you agree with even some of what I just said, I'd like to state a few things for the record should another attack take place during the first few DAYS of our new President taking office.

First off, that whole " Well Bush has done great in the area of terrorism is PLAINLY evidenced by the lack of an attack - on American soil ( an unimportant to me caveat, but I get your point when you say it like that. And you ALWAYS say it JUST like that. )" doesn't wash with me. At least it doesn't make me FEEL safe. It was used WAY too prematurely post 9/11 and frankly, I feel like it was literally daring God to do it again.

And although I'm taking my sweet time getting around to it- that is kind of my point. I believe that God WILL let it happen again. I do not WISH it to happen again. I just think it will.

So my question becomes; If it happens again, given all that we have seen, done, heard, read, watched, thought about, prepared for - would that act change how you feel? Or just reinforce how you feel?

Look, this is the kind of man I am. I think it is important to declare things, out loud - but be fully within your rights to change your mind or have it changed for you. Who doesn't do that? That doesn't make you weak or wishy-washy or a hand-wringer - this is just a discussion. I'm not assigning any labels no mater what side you come down on.

Let's say that during the last 8 months of Bush's Presidency, we get hit. Hard. Let's say it comes from an angle that was either coverd and screamed about ( ports, railways, dirty bomb, maybe even another plane [ does everyone agree that those are well covered possiblities? I mean, that's why we are working them so hard via Homeland Securtiy, right? Right ] ) or one that truly DID surprise us.

Would the fact that we had never been attacked on AMERICAN SOIL still be used with a straight face? I mean, after all the ways we have tried to prepare, if we STILL get hit, is that something you'd still champion? Or would you be outraged? Or would you just be the person at the factory who changes the " Injury Work Free Days " tally in the break room and start taking pride in day 1 all over again?

So what am I getting at? Good question.

If we get hit while a Democratic President is sitting, how many days does he get before it can be his blame. We know it's his responsibility on day 1. I believe that. But blame comes around too. Is it reasonable to expect him to have a full handle on all the things on the table on day 1? I think it is. Even in this day and age and after all we've experienced, day 1 of his Presidency would not have CAUSED this hit to happen. So WHEN then? It's gotta be lower than the 8 months Bush had ( not including the 7 minutes after. That's not a dig for any other reason than to give a nod to how it would be handled differently - I HOPE!!! ).

But somewhere in between day 1 and 8 months seems fair.

I'm not interested in getting into semantics about blame vs. responsibility this time around. I'm talking about, if it happens again, KNOWING WHAT WE'VE SEEN, at what point can you say " It was his fault that he let this happen." Think about the future.

Will it just be another rallying cry for the Republicans that they were doing a great job...until a Democrat came into office. You can't really believe that " until " and " because " mean the same thing on day 1. Do you?

Tragically for all of you, this is the tip of the ice berg for me on this topic. It's complex in my pea brain and I think about it. I'm a fan of justice and fairness. But I'm not such a hypocrite that I can say I fail at those quite often. But I'm working on it.

So I really want to talk about the nuances and circumstances that would help you form an opinion of a President - before it happens.

To what end? Well, the first reason is to possibly learn from you guys. Honestly. I particiapte in nothing remotely as beneficial to me as this side of PDX Radio. I have learned TONS.

Another reason is to learn who you are on a level that I like to operate from time to time. See how much I participate on the more mundane threads too though? It's not like I am some conversational snob. I can take 10 times more than I dish out. So let me have it, if you feel that way today. That'll be just as interesting.

Finally, there will be hijacking. It's the nature of conversations. I know it's internet and not like a room full of people talking ( i.e. - You say something, then I say something, then someone else says something - much more orderly than the real world ). but those more casual and personal conversations can often be imposed on internet message boards too. So don't get bent out of shape if it steers somewhere else for a while. It almost always comes back to the more important parts anyway.

I agree with much of what you say, CJ. Yes, there was intelligence allegedly that 9/11 was, well if not inevitable, probably going to happen and soon. That said, honestly, what was the Bush administration to do at the time? Did we know WHEN it was to happen? Did we KNOW that the WTC was one of the targets? Could we have evacuated beforehand? What if it was a false alarm, how many times would we "cry wolf"??

What bothers me is what has happened SINCE 9/11. The gross mishandling of the entire process has been egregious. The Bush administration was given that big giant dove, that big giant olive branch by the entire world right after 9/11. The rest of the world galvanized behind the United States, supported us, empathized with us, they were there for us. Bush spoke of the "political capital" he had after the 2004 election, well he TRULY had a bankroll of "political capital". His decision-making post-9/11 is the equivalent of going all in on a 7-3 offsuit against a guy with pocket aces. From dropping the ball on what should have been the ONLY objective (catching Osama bin Laden) to this farce in Iraq, to his justification for his actions, it has been one giant clusterfuck.

Instead of being leaders of the free world, the United States that the world looks up to and seeks for help and guidance, we are one of the scorns of the world. Strained relations with many of our European allies. A sickening alliance with Saudi Arabia and others in the region. An unjust and illegal occupation still taking in a place where we are not wanted or welcome. The Taliban re-taking a stronghold in Afghanistan. And I'm not even going into so much domestic crap that we're dealing with as a society.

This isn't a Republican vs. Democrat thing like I am sure it will turn out to be. It's a matter of right against wrong, and I don't think that the Bush administration gets it.

Oh that bothers me too. I'd just assume leave out all post 9/11 decisions. That's been done.

Thank you for opening this discussion Chickenjuggler. I love it when you dig deep man, because there is so much good stuff inside your head.

I will concede that I am one of those, like Brianl and others, who weighed the evidence and is still very skeptical of the official story of 9/11. This is not based on the theories of a tin hat minority, but the glaring light of established facts. However, as you suggested, I will try to put that all aside, glean the lessons and focus on the future. History will only be used to illustrate a better approach to fighting terrorism.

Most tragedies have roots in one or all of a basic set of factors: Competence, complacency, and collaboration. Because this is true, it is very difficult to rule out any of these dimensions in investigation or preparation. While in the end, one may outweigh the other, they all come into play.

The first factor, competence, is often a given until it is tested. If you put a suit on, sit at a desk, and the door has any title on it, there is an implied competence by your geographical position in that chair. Whether you are a charlatan or not, responsibility belongs to the person who occupies a given office.

The United States government was already short of common sense, compassion and civility long before the GOP took over in 2001. Until the darkest days came, Americans did not know the depth of that problem. Being too big, too slow and too out of touch with their people put everyone in grave danger.

Ignoring the basic needs of the country became exponentially worse when combined with incompetence. From the get go, government reaction to the smallest things showed beyond a shadow of a doubt that vast portions of the administration were not only in over their heads, but lacked judgment, common sense and compassion. When catastrophic events occurred, our nation suffered far more than she ever would with a real government.

Instead of using accountability to solve the overwhelming lack of competence, the administration turned to secrecy. Instead of peeling away the onion of terror publicly, they locked the kitchen and hollered that we were fine through the door. Being dumb is one thing, but playing dumb is quite another.

Competence is a many bladed sword. While a party represented by a dominant gender or race can simply plead ignorance -- even when many thousands die -- that brutal grace is not afforded to all. I have no doubt about the abilities of a new Democratic administration to keep us safe and free. They will be more than just competent. However, our next President will probably be an African-American or a Woman. Authority is often kept from these Americans, and ancient untruths may yet keep them from our Capitol.

So, assuming they get there, have everything together, and the nation is humming along at last with competent people, how will a horrific event be perceived? Will it be a knee-jerk and regressive question of competence that ignores the very real skills of our leaders regardless of color or gender?

The second factor is complacency. Remember, the American electorate were given a fancy story to believe after the last attack. Complacency, along with incompetence, were obvious factors in 9/11. Our flat-footed government was caught completely by surprise, but instead of giving us a plan, fear was used to divide us, confuse us and distract us. As a result, folks went to the polls and brought back the very people who bumbled along with bullseyes on the backs of their suitcoats in the first place. Apparently, to many voters, a white man has competence by his presence rather than his deed.

With history fresh in their minds, there will be no trace of complacency in a new Democratic administration. One can rule that factor out immediately when either Clinton or Obama are sworn into office. When change finally comes, they will be more than merely competent. Responsibility will shift to an experienced, eager and educated staff. The channels of communication between the White House, DHS, CIA, FBI and DOD are streamlined now. For the first time in 8 years, somebody on the other end will be listening to all of their concerns. Even with the potential of a coming peace, our vigilant system is geared to eliminate complacency and reward competence with safety.

If the whole world is already becoming convinced that the Democrats mean a positive change -- peace in Iraq, a democracy in Pakistan and diplomatic negotiations with Iran, etc. -- it is hard to argue that people are "poised to strike" at any moment. Even with all of our talk of energy independence, we are still going to be perceived as better neighbors in the Middle East.

The restoration of habeas corpus, the Geneva Conventions or our Constitution will not put us at risk. Closing Guantanamo will not put us at risk. Bringing our troops home from an illegal war will not put us at risk. Restoring our nation as a leader in civil rights will not put us at risk.

So, if it happens, it will not be a result of any complacency or a lack of competence. It will be thoroughly investigated, hopefully with more than a bit of transparency, and conclusions will be drawn. We may be left with one question moving to the top of the list: collaboration. It is a question from 9/11 that still haunts me.

If indeed, there was any administration or corporate connection to that horrific day, and it comes to light before a future tragedy, the Democratic administration may put itself at risk by asking too many questions, but those questions still must be asked. We owe both justice and the truth to the widows and children of 9/11.

Through history, folks have had to come to grips with the fact that a few individuals in very high positions felt that they were expendable. The people of New Orleans know this is true, and the people of New York have their suspicions. I sincerely hope that more Americans do not have to die for us all to discover the disturbing truth about empire, wealth and absolute power.

I second Littlesong CJ. When you do uncork it, we can just smell the good stuff inside. I like you --like you a lot, largely because you give a shit, and don't have a lot of fear about that. Good on you.

I'm not in a spot where I can unload in similar fashion, so I'll just make it brief and then come back.

We are not innocent anymore. I think our strong need to blame is wrapped up in that. Now we've come of age, playing with the older crowd. We haven't exactly respected them either --and in this matter we really should have, since we are the newbie.

I don't buy the, "we haven't been hit because Bush kicks so much ass" bit. I also don't think we are not gonna get hit again, in the near term.

We could get hit and hit because we are new and are stupid and will blame and will divide rather than unify and conquer. We may find ourselves to be a tool --and asking questions like the one you just did is a part of getting past that.

All that matters to me is how we handle it going forward.

And that takes us right to the place you are wanting to go.

Let me say this: If you exploit it, you own it. How's that for a starter? Disasters and war are not moments of personal gain --at least not moments for the intent of personal gain. That's the thing that's gotta happen because of who we are as people and because of the things we need, not some chance to self enrich, posted up on a platter.

911 is currently owned by the GOP, and for the reason I just gave. At the core, that's a huge part of why I think what I do of them as a whole, and most of what I think about the President specifically.

So I gotta say this too. If nobody that matters exploits it, then we all own it. In a perfect world then, there is not so much blame --some is human, so it's gotta slide, but mostly there is unity and strength in that. That's American, we don't take shit and surrender our core equality and freedom over it.

How I see the President at any given time boils down to those two ideas. The actions taken, ideas expressed, bonds made all come down to that.

It's a start huh? You know me by now. I have to eventually break it down to the core elements, or I've not really expressed anything. That's where I am, in response to your question right now.

I also strongly suspect we are gonna learn something over this next stretch of time, as I don't think I'm gonna let this one go easy. Too vital, IMHO.

I don't know if we CAN leave out the post-9/11 decisions though, CJ.

9/11 shaped, galvanized and unified this country and our place in the world unlike any other event in recent history, possibly in the complete history of the United States.

What has happened since then simply cannot be ignored. George W. Bush only had to do whst was RIGHT and focus his efforts where they SHOULD have been the whole time, with the unified support of not only our allies across Europe and Asia and elsewhere, but with our adversaries such as China and many of the Middle East nations that empathized with us and supported us after the attacks.

I'm not going to rehash what has happened instead, because everyone but Herb seems to rehash that daily in here. That horse has been beaten plenty. But to only look at Bush's Presidency and his legacy from inaugeration day in 2001 to 9/11 is like going to a movie, watching the previews and going home before the movie actually starts. The previews may have been exciting and serving to whet your whistle for when it comes out, but the movie itself was dogmeat.

We just can't IGNORE what has happened.

Well I agree. We can't just ignore those decisions. But what I am getting at is; How we will view our next President in the early days of his administration? What we will expect from him that we either didn't get from Bush or didn't ASK for from Bush?

I admit, this started out in my head as a petty argument that I was willing to make. I forget how it even got in my head. I'm sure it was a conversation around here. I never liked the whole " We've never been attacked on American Soil...since 9/11 " as proof of anything. I get the point. You're right. We haven't been. But to imply that that is proof that we are winning the war on terror is infuriating to me. Really? That's what you cite as proof? What about the fact that there are MORE people who would LIKE to harm us today than before 9/11. Does that count for anything in your world?

And that lead to my post above. And this will probably lead somewhere else.

I like to try and get to the bottom of things. I like to know where people stand on a given topic. I like to work through as much of it verbally as I can. It helps me get out of my own head so much.

So when I say " I'd just assume leave out all post 9/11 decisions " that's actually doing something that I hate which is " overstating it." So let me just say that I feel we have covered how we each feel about the post 9/11 decisons made. Great. Then by all means explain how that helped form your view of what you will expect from our next President and when you will expect to start seeing results.

Maybe it's less about 9/11 pre or post - and more about feeling SO close to getting what I have ALWAYS wanted with regards to transparency and working towards things and cleaning up some huge messes and being able to move on past feeling so shitty and burned by Bush. It's just that so many people hang their hat on " No attacks since 9/11 " as if that were enough. When in fact, that seems to be ALL there is. So I guess I'm starting somewhere ( 9/11 ) as a starting point, unfair or fair, barometer of how to judge the next President's effectiveness.

I'm really hypersensitive to my own hopes right now. Things are setting up for true, deep down good for me and much of our nation, I believe. Part of me types this all out just to keep it in check so I don't swing too far one way or another. I'm not going to become some kind of political zealot that screams " SUCCESS HAS BEEN GRANTED TO ALL OF YOU! THANK THE DEMOCRATS!!"

Nor am I buying any land in Canada today.

But we are being given good reason to think that there is reason to hope. Doesn't it feel like an eternity since we've had that?

So if Obama delivers his campaign all the way to the White House, and we keep him from getting assassinated, what are some examples of some realistic expectations from him in those first 100 days? Frankly, I want it all to happen yesterday. But I'm trying to be realistic.

Same as I was for Bush. Trying not to harp on the guy and just get my own shit together, But then 9/11 happened and the ensuing shitstorm ever since. I am often amazed at how many of my trigger points Bush was able to step on so confidently and with such purpose. It was amazing.

I'm ready for that to be over now, please.

This time though, I want to be REALLY ready for anything. I want to have my own plan on what to want in a leader. I thought I had that when Bush took office. I was wrong. I didn't. Not really. I knew what I DIDN'T like or want. That doesn't count for shit, really.

This time I am working on what I want in our President and what I will hold him accountable for and what I won't.

( I'm getting closer to my own answer, I guess. Shit - I don't know. But I'm TRYING to know ).

It was known that terrorists wanted to attack the US, and that the WTC would be a natural target. It was also known that terrorists had spoke of using airplanes as missiles to crash them into buildings. Red flags were waived in early August 2001 that something was up. Bush was president on 9/11/01, and I blame him fully for not doing more to protect our country. It's been documented that the Bush administration did not take the warnings seriously from the Clinton administration regarding Al Qaida. They were too focused on the traditional GOP idea of missile defense and other cold war relic ideas. If we all knew that planes crashing into buildings was a possiblilty, why wasn't more done to keep hijackers from taking over those planes? Something as simple as a lock on the cockpit door could have prevented 9/11 from occuring.

And, we all know how much George W. Bush has failed post 9/11. This is why his presidency will be regarded as the worst our country has ever seen.

What if the attack had happend on Day 1 of Bush's administration? Would you assign an equal amount of blame as you do now?

My guess is " no."

So I'm trying to prepare for any eventuality ( not that I could really do anything about it anyway - but maybe I'll feel better knowing that I have an idea of what makes me willing to follow a leader and what makes me willing to say " Fuck off " and ignore as much of the President as I can ).

How about just not lying?

Iraq was about OIL, not terror. To this day, people are still walking around thinking the whole mess was about terror!

It is now, but that's because we hosed things up which opened the door for terror to breed there and with it, lots of new America haters.

The wiretapping bit. It was going on before 911, and has been lied about over and over and over.

And cultivating fear. If I see a President doing that, I'm off the train right then and there.

We don't need fear mongering at all. Rational expressions of things we should be worried about is ok, but not raw fear mongering and then playing off of that for some other reason.

That's why Iraq sucks right now!

If we've got a problem and it's gonna be ugly to deal with it, can't we just own up to that, have the President just say it, then we go to work on it and fix it?

If we can't do that, why not?

This administration says because the enemy would know what we are doing. I can't buy that because having attacked us, they are gonna expect us to do stuff --ugly stuff. What else is there?

(blow up another country for OIL instead?)

Been watching Presidents of the past. Some good, some bad. One thing a lot of the good ones did was actually talk to us.

They would tell us stuff, why it mattered, how it's gonna get handled, who, and how. And it made sense! People could buy into it, not worried about how it's really gonna show up as some greater exploitation.

That's a big one for me right now.

So many lies it's difficult to trust. When I hear about some new plan, program, thing to fear, I always wonder if that's really it, or is it somebody needing a new contract, or settling a personal deal.

Look at the Satellite shoot down just recently. How many really believe that thing was gonna crash down and just cause a lot of trouble?

Now, think about China shooting one down earlier, and what that means in a military sense, and now do you believe that other stuff?

Kind of tough to call, given the lies we've seen, isn't it?

I think so, and so that's gotta be a measure going forward.

If I can't listen to what the President has to say, respect that, understand that, and buy into that, then there is trouble for sure.

That's capital "T", which rhymes with "P" and that stands for "Pool!" --Trouble in River City folks!

Well that's a threadfull. Changing the ship of state's direction when you have speed and mass is not always a quick thing. Like going on a diet and expecting overnight results. It takes time, hard work and dedication. Excuse my opinions, but the Bush administration has high cholesterol, high glucose, and are significantly challenged intellectually. However, we all know each other's 'pinions now, don't we?

Re: topic\bush\legacy\views:

Stupid is as stupid does.

Re: topic\nextpresident\firstdays\attackresponse

I think, if we assume said dastardly event occurs in the early days of the next administration, the Bush administration will and should get the brunt of the blame. Historically, when a new president inherits a floundering economy, time is allowed for some new direction before the economic numbers are tied to the new administration ... usually 2 quarters ... soooooo
if the new administration has not yet had time to make any changes in policy on terror, the majority of the country wouldn't buy into political innuendo. Let's call it as it has happened: We would be safer if some of the war money actually made it into border security/import product security/homeland security which it didn't. It's been 7 years and all we've done is lose llves and helped the enemy recruit bodies. So much for the Bush logic.

War is big business and the GOP will be running on more war, more tax breaks at the very top, and screw the rest of us.

The Democrats are not going to pursue ghosts in Iraq, but they would certainly have to temper their plans to include a proper response to any new attack. Pursuing the enemy where they are instead of where they weren't ala Bush is a step that should not be underestimated and is clearly on the radar for the Democratic nominees.

Another measure of the new President is how hard they push to have the broken things fixed.

-Get FISA tweaked to the max for intel ops to work to their max, with accountability in place

-due process issues

-check the fear mongering with rational analysis and the results of that applied to our security

(busy work does not make us safer)

-ethics (either we can deal with terror with our process, or we can't, so deal with that)

In short, if the new President is pro-active, communicates with us and generally gets our spirit moving the right directions, we are gonna have a favorable judgment.

It's not all their job --it's all of our job. With this terror bit, that's key in my book. We all sail in the same boat. That means we all need to work to get there safely.

Hey, here's something relevant to this thread!

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Obama_responds_to_the_red_phone.html

Obama says he will respond in a way that makes good sense. Clearly differentiated from the usual fare.

Great stuff guys! We are not the only folks discussing these issues. Just today, there was a hearing held by the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

The discussion was brief, but fairly robust. In his testimony, Dr. Ott brought up a very big factor in the dangers we face in the future: oversight. In his statements he very wisely observed that the political atmosphere of the 1990s put us at risk. Senate oversight on intelligence -- and many other matters -- was eroded by apathy and rooted in the divisive politics of the time. He stated that 9/11 could have been avoided if the cooperative bi-partisan oversight system from the 1980s was still in place.

Other testimony was startling, showing how much of our national security is farmed out to private firms, with little or no oversight as to who is and is not included in the discussion of secrets, or who may have information to manipulate. All in all, it was an interesting peek into the machinations of our government, and the dangerous tentacles of contractors.