Posted 7:32 PM by steve

IF we are on the receiving end of a terrorist attack anytime in the next three-plus years, the American people are going to be mighty upset at ANYONE perceived as not having been diligent enough in detecting and deterring such attacks... which poses huge risks to the Obama Administration in light of their pledges to back off tactics used (and apparently successfully) by the Bush Administration to protect America from terrorist attacks.

Being the President in the aftermath of a terrorist attack can be analogized to the doctor whose patient dies: if the doctor didn't pull out all the stops to figure out what was wrong or withheld any treatment that could have potentially cured the patient he might as well just get out his checkbook and start filling in zeroes. The patient's relatives (spurred on by ambulance chasing personal injury attorneys who invited themselves along for the ride) aren't going to care about cost limitations or that the withheld treatment had risks or whatever other defense the medical staff can offer up, all they're going to see is that their loved one is dead and they're going to go looking for scalps (note: fear of being sued is one of the big drivers of so-called 'defensive medicine', where doctors pull out all the stops in order to defend themselves against charges they didn't do all that could be done).

And the same holds true if we're attacked. IF that happens, is there any doubt that somebody (hint) will claim that the attack would have been prevented if only the Obama Administration hadn't been in such a hurry to abandon 'extraordinary rendition'? Or in such a hurry to announce their intent to close down Guantanamo? Or in such a hurry to start talking with terrorist groups and their supporters? Or in such a hurry to abandon the 'enhanced interrogation methods' used during the Bush Administration?

And it won't matter whether there was substance to the charges, whether such tactics would have in fact uncovered the attack (Former FBI agent Coleen Rowley became a celebrity after airing charges that her incompetent supervisors kept her from preventing 9/11). All the American people are going to see is dead Americans, rubble and a President trying to avoid taking responsibility (it's one thing to accept blame for a nomination gone awry, it's another thing altogether to stand up and accept blame for not having prevented an attack that killed Americans). And unlike in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, no one in the Obama Administration is going to get a pass by claiming they couldn't have been expected to realize the extent of the threat from terrorists.

IF such an attack takes place, the American people are going to ask the question: did your Administration do EVERYTHING possible to keep this from happening? And the Obama Administration will not be able to answer in the affirmative. Sure seems like a situation Obama would really, really, really like to avoid. But what do I know, I (reluctantly) voted for the other guy.