Springfield Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 So... For the sake of argument, say Obama wins the presidency. We'd now have President Obama. Say, oh, a year after he is elected there is another attack on American soil. There is an attack large enough to kill hundreds if not thousands of American citizens. Simple question. Who's fault is it? Is it Obama's fault because he is the sitting president? Is it Bush's fault for not prepairing Obama for a possible attack? I know what opinion I have on the hypothetical situation but I want to hear what ES thinks about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamingwolf Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 niether, they don't care who the president is they will attack us cause we are not inline with their beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVUforREDSKINS Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Can't call either one.. You just opened up a can of worms here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted June 30, 2008 Author Share Posted June 30, 2008 You just opened up a can of worms here. Yeah, I'm sure I did. It was just something that occured to me the other night. I was listening to the radio and somebody mentioned how one of McCain's advisors thought a terrorist attack would help McCain's chances at victory. I got to thinking, what if Obama was elected and then there was a terrorist attack? I remember how Clinton got the brunt of the blame for the terrorist attacks while Bush was in command. Why wouldn't Bush get the brunt of the blame while Obama was in command? It's obviously something I'd rather not happen, so hopefully this remains a hypothetical either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Right after the attack, we will blame the terrorists and rally around our President. After the smoke has cleared, perhaps during the 2010 midterm elections but certainly during the 2012 re-election campaign, Republicans will blame Obama while Democrats will blame Bush. (Sarge will continue to blame Klinton). ...it also depends a lot on who the perpetrators are. If it is Bin Laden again, a lot blame will probably fall on Bush. If it is somehow related to our withdrawal from Iraq, Obama will get a lot more blame. If it's some wacko American like Timothy McVeigh, the President probably won't get much blame at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Spiff Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 niether, they don't care who the president is they will attack us cause we are not inline with their beliefs. Right answer. However golden child Obama will never get blamed for anything. Bush will still be blamed for things that occur 4-8 years from now and probably after. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 niether, they don't care who the president is they will attack us cause we are not inline with their beliefs. Correct. For some reason we're so arrogant as to think everything revolves around us, and never seem to consider that others may have their own motivations. Who's fault will it be? The ****ers who do it, that's who. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 It'll be the acting POTUS. If Obama/McCain come in, don't change our foreign policy and the violence continues, the blood should be on their hands. It's part of the job the are trying to get. (It will also be "the fault" of Clinton, Bush(x2) the congress and every American citizen) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDRedskinsFan Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Yeah, I'm sure I did.It was just something that occured to me the other night. I was listening to the radio and somebody mentioned how one of McCain's advisors thought a terrorist attack would help McCain's chances at victory. I got to thinking, what if Obama was elected and then there was a terrorist attack? I remember how Clinton got the brunt of the blame for the terrorist attacks while Bush was in command. Why wouldn't Bush get the brunt of the blame while Obama was in command? It's obviously something I'd rather not happen, so hopefully this remains a hypothetical either way. I think the reason Clinton got the brunt of the blame, was that he didn't respond to the USS Cole bombings in late 2000. Then there's the "We could have had bin Laden from the Saudis had we just picked up the phone" point. And while he did have a budget surplus, it came in large part due to a drastic cut in defense spending. Point is, people don't believe that Clinton took national security seriously enough.That said, since it did happen right before Bush was elected, he should have been on top of that after his election, and not worrying about his 1st round of tax cuts, which were political, not economical in purpose. Instead, they pushed it off and just like Clinton, didn't take al Qaida seriously enough, and it burned us on 9/11. Hypothetically, since this example says over a year after election, I would assume that Obama would have at least began to withdraw troops from Iraq, and thinking that it would reduce our chances of being a target. It's hard to blame one person because the plans for a massive attack over a year from now would already be in full-force. They are sick people. If it does happen, you'll see a split down the middle, with half blaming Bush, and half blaming Obama. I don't know if it is right to blame either one, because they wouldn't have committed the act. It would depend on our response to the attack who the majority would blame, which makes no sense, but if Obama's response exceeds Bush's in success, then Bush will be blamed most, and vice versa if that isn't the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Correct.For some reason we're so arrogant as to think everything revolves around us, and never seem to consider that others may have their own motivations. Who's fault will it be? The ****ers who do it, that's who. ~Bang There's the right answer. Bang for President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HogNose Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 :munchout:.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 The terrorists. Any other answer is foolish. However, if we find out that the way the terrorists got a bomb into this country through one of the numerous points of access we have intentionally neglected to secure or improve, then Bush will not have done all he could do to safeguard this nation. It is one of my biggest qualms with this administration: If the threat of international terrorism is so grave, vital and serious, then why have we done almost nothing to improve the security at our borders, ports, and train stations. We have ignored physical domestic security to too large a degree. Now, it is impossible to be safe, but still much more could and should have been done... if they really believe terrorism is a threat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCSaints_fan Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 It will be Jimmy Carter's fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.