>>>. If you don't mind, I would propose another line of reasoning for this case. It could be assumed that Al Qaeda planned more strikes against US targets, i.e. they were not going to stop after 9/11. Would you agree with this assumption? If yes, then President really deserves credit for preventing more attacks. What is your opinion?
>>
>
Did Al Qaeda have more attacks planned? Personal opinion. No. At least not in the immediate future. My opinion is that any future attacks would have been planned for no fewer than three years after 9/11 when the hysteria would, presumably, be over and Americans could be counted upon to have let their guard down again.

But we haven't let our guard down and for that I think Bush deserves some (perhaps much) credit. While the paranoia of 9/11 has pretty much (maybe 80%) disappeared, the valid fears are still there and Americans are willing to put up with self-important TSA flunkeys flaunting their power and getting away with it because they do provide a visible (and maybe even viable) deterrent.

I also think the next attacks are more likely to be of the sort described in Tom Clancy's "Teeth of the Tiger" than another airline hijacking. I don't know why something like that has not happened. Whether it's been successful infiltration so that the attacks were stopped before they could get started we'll never (and unfortunately rightfully never) know. Maybe it's been fear of the retaliation. Again, we'll never know. Or maybe the ditto-heads are right and Obama is a modern day Bob Leffingwell and the attacks will resume as soon as he's done his damage to our intelligence agencies. We'll find out about this soon enough.

So whether it's the result of luck, circumstances, or his policies, there hasn't been another attack during the Bush administration. If I'm willing to blame his for everything else (and I am), I'll at least give him the credit for this.