If we are attacked again, whose fault will it be?

Just say "No" seems to be the only political strategy that the GOP has at the present time. They are against any type of health care that doesn't benefit the big insurance companies. They spread the lie that the "terrorists" will be in our neighborhoods if we put them into our super max prisons. The fear-mongering works with the weak US Senate. They vote to keep the prisoners in Guantanamo for the forseeable future.

However, doesn't this add more fuel to the flames of hatred about Guantanamo that are already burning? Doesn't this make it more likely that we will be attacked by the terrorists? Isn't this type of political posturing making us less safe?

Is this hyper partisanship a threat to our national security? If we are hit again, who will be to blame? We know that Cheney and the right-wingers are waiting for a "I-told-you-so" moment...

Usually how it goes.

Part of it should fall on whoever it was that swoll the ranks of and the support for the world's terrorist organizations that they could muster the resources to attack us here. But it's Obama's job to protect us.

(on edit)
Of course most of the blame falls on the people who actually kill to strike terror on society.

We elected the idiots in our government who pissed off the Muslims. As long as things do not change, we will be open for another attack. Don't forget that we have our own home grown terrorist who have a hundred reasons to attack the government.

They seem to be wasting inordinate amounts of men and resources trying to weed out potential 'terrorists' who couldn't even steal a chimichanga from the highly wasted clerk working graveyard shift at the local 7-11 without getting caught, never mind put together any sort of incendiary device beyond a bic and a can of hairspray without doing themselves serious damage.

of the Clintons. I know that the people driving those investigations felt that examining shady land deals, the *mysterious* suicide of Vince Foster, the firing of travel officials, and, most importantly, lying about Presidential BJs, might have been *important* but who knows how things might've turned out on 9/11 had they been spending more time returning phone calls from flight schools with people asking to learn how to fly planes but not land them.
:eyes:

are ultimately responsible. Good police work and international cooperation will slow them down.

We can slow them down but we can't stop all of them.

The previous administration, focused on dreams of oil and glory in Iraq, didn't even bother to try to slow them down.

The attackers are responsible. But the previous administration was not into oil and glory in Iraq when 9-11 happened.

before 9/11. Remember Richard Clarke says he was buttonholed nearly immediately after 9/11 and told to find something on the Iraquis?

Obama's administration is so he will get the blame. And if it comes to that don't you think he should get the blame if it happens on his watch?

I don't think it will happen on his watch though. Certainly it will never again happen on such a grand scale again or by foreigners. Home grown terrorists are a different matter though.

Not always 100%, but you get the lion's share.

As I recall?

Everyone acknowledges that there is always early signals, but to most Bush owned 9/11.

I don't recall that Bush or Cheney ever accepted responsibility for the attack on their watch. Clinton had a chance to catch Osama bin Laden and he didn't. That is what I recall...

no warning....how can it be our fault?

it happens in early 2012 with NO warning?

Only now do people get the fact we had many warnings that we were being attacked back in 2001...but Bush and his entire Staff declined to share that crucial warning and continued his Vacation in Crawford....

The GOP are Bullies and they like to whine about nit shit...

Bullies also like to blame others...its almost like they make themselves look good by nitting and blaming others no end...

Distraction, distortion is the BULLIES strategy to denigrate...disparage the Democratic Party and members/supporters

the Roosevelt administration blamed General Short and Admiral Kimmel for the disaster at Pearl Harbor

This is one of the most childish arguments around. It is inconceivable that we will somehow always be able to prevent a terrorist attack, either by al Queda or domestic terrorists like McVeigh, et al.

Even if we put thousands in preventive detention, water board everyone, rape their mothers and wives and daughters, sodomise their teenaged sons and crush their little boys' testicles, there will always be the chance of someone getting through the walls around Festung Amerika and wreaking havoc.

And just look at that list of things the Bushoid REpukes have argued are acceptable and LEGAL. Back in the 60's, those of us on the "right" were deathly afraid that the "left" would create things like the FEMA detention centers, renditioning and "disappearing" people without any legal cause except for the determination they were "unAmerican".

Now the self proclaimed "conservatives" not only think such tactics are okay, but have put laws into place enabling them. If/when another attack succeeds I can only hope the Obama administration has the common sense to use these BUSHoid mechanisms to round up all the "right wing" commentators and columnists and politicians and rendition them to Guam or someplace similarly distant. THey could charge them with treason, or with nothing at all.

THey'll never see it coming; irony is lost to them.

not totally possible to stop them. Of course, right away, someone other than the attackers has to be blamed. And that's political BS.

and the Democrats, right?

are. That's the political BS I was referring to.

The world is a dangerous place, and our leaders have a choice: either orchestrate or allow these attacks in order to keep us in line, or do their best to thwart the attack. Leave the blame game to FAUX.

be Bush. Of course, I would blame Bush 4 years from now if it happened because of the terrorists that were created when we invaded Iraq. All the sons, nephews who lost parents because of that illegal war will be adults in about 10 years so if they grow up to become terrorists, it will still be Bush's fault.

I fully expect that the terrorists involved will be quite similar to me in overall appearance, Caucasian with a southern accent.

They and their tacit supporters will blame the rest of the nation for simply "going to far" in both electing Barack Obama and in demanding things like heath care, marriage equality, and other assorted evils their Lord and Savior Ronald Reagan would have never gone for. They will have responded to rallying cries from their like minded media to fight back and retake their country from the un-American anti-Christians who have no right to be here.

this scenario is not out of the realm of possibilities, all within the realm of "economically justifiable" racism and vendettas that go back to the Civil War for a small, but significant, minority.

Plausible Deniability is a highly cultivated and highly Marketable commodity.

If President Obama and his team don't manage their intelligence apparatus effectively and/or fail to follow up on suspicious activity or "chatter" or, more importantly, if President Obama simply blows off important PDBs, he should (and will undoubtedly) be justifiably blamed for any attacks. Fortunately, President Obama does not seem to be like Bush/Cheney and I have little doubt that he will respond appropriately to threats to our country. I'd say that if he does as well as the Clinton administration did in terms of combating terrorism, then we should all be fine. No President should necessarily be blamed for EVERYTHING bad that happens while in office. What really matters IMHO is whether or not he/she were doing everything within their power to protect us and/or not going out of their way to jeopardize our safety (i.e. by illegally invading other countries). Sometimes, sh** DOES happen that nobody could prevent but when it does, hopefully it's not that often and hopefully, it doesn't end up being too awful- in terms of casualties.