http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/07/13/DI2007071301490.html<snip>
Greenbelt, Md.: You have been wrong about every important prediction you have made about the outcome of this war and this presidency -- why should anyone pay attention to you now?
William Kristol: Feel free not to!
...
Alexandria, Va.:"First, no second terrorist attack on U.S. soil -- not something we could have taken for granted."
Ever since I bought this tiger-repelling rock I have not been attacked by a tiger, hence the rock is clearly working.
William Kristol: How about, ever since we started more aggressive surveillance and interrogation, and took the war to the enemy, we haven't had a second 9/11. BUT, I do want to make clear the threat is real, and presumably there will be at some point another attack that gets through...Still, I think it's simply true that if you went back and looked at what experts said after 9/11, they would have predicted more success for the terrorists by now.
...
Arlington, Va.: I presume that you give President Clinton full credit for "keeping America safe" from a terrorist attack in the homeland for the duration of his term, following the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center?
William Kristol: I think neither President Clinton nor the GOP Congress (nor the Bush Administration in its first several months) did enough to go after al Qaeda abroad nor to strengthen us at home. But I certainly supported Clinton's aggressive actions when he took them, e.g., in Sudan and against Saddam in 1998.
...
Alexandria, Va.: Do the anthrax letters not count as a terrorist attack because the targets mostly were Democrats or because you wouldn't be able to use the disingenuous argument of no terror attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11? And as a follow-up, when there is another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, will you use it as an argument to advocate attacking some other countries, or as proof that the Bush administration is incompetent?
William Kristol: I don't think we know the source of the anthrax attacks. If there is another attack--and there are and have been, after all, attempted attacks, I would advocate responding by attacking that group and denying them sanctuary if we haven't done that already. No one can stop all attacks--and my defense of the Bush Administration doesn't turn on this--but I think if Bush has made basic mistakes, it will turn out to be that he wasn't aggressive enough in going after terrorists and their sponsors, not the opposite.