National Security in 2012

More than anything else – even the economy – National Security is the essential issue of any modern, post-9/11 campaign.  He can blame the economy on Bush, if he wants, as it didn’t start existing on January 20, 2009.  But National Security rests firmly on the President’s shoulders, and if there were to be another terrorist attack on U.S. soil – no matter how big – it would be perceived as Obama’s fault.
It’s a bit of a double standard, as George Bush was never really blamed for the 9/11 attacks – well, except by conspiracy theorists – but at the time, the nation wasn’t expecting it.  So Bush’s anti-terrorism record really was measured from September 12, 2001 on.  For the short term, at least, chances are that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have indeed kept us “fighting them over there instead of here,” and, possibly, have been a major reason we haven’t seen any further terrorist attacks since 9/11.  There’s good reason to believe that terrorist plots still very easily could be carried out in the U.S. (both now in Obama times and back in Bush times), thanks to the extremely long and porous Canadian border and the limited capabilities of intelligence agencies.
Truthfully, most intelligence think tanks and institutions put the possibility as an eventual inevitability.  Which shouldn’t be too surprising.  It really just takes a person with the will and scruples to cover their tracks.  Joe Lieberman is even suggesting that the recent Fort Hood shooting was a terrorist attack, though this is probably not true.  And what is considered a terrorist attack is kind of a gray area too.  Do the beltway sniper attacks of 2002 count as terrorism, or was that just murder?
Point is, it’s kind of a crapshoot as to when terrorist attacks will come.  And whether it is truly his fault or not – and it could go either way there – Obama is going to be held responsible for anything that happens under his watch.
So what would happen in 2012 if there was a significant terrorist attack under Obama’s watch?  A number of things, probably.  First, the conservatives would try and pin it as a failure of the Democrats foreign policy and national security tactics, and use it as an affirmation that the PATRIOT Act and Gitmo were the way to go.  And it would get them a lot of support.  Naturally, an investigation would take place, and a lot of the political backlash would depend on the findings of the commission that ran the investigation, though George Bush was adept at deflecting any of the blame directed at his administration during 9/11.  If the report found that Obama’s policy wasn’t responsible, Obama could survive it for a second term.  If it blamed Obama policy, he would be in serious trouble for 2012.  Because if there’s one thing the Republican party can do, it’s capitalize off of knee-jerk reactions.  They’ve proven to be spectacular at reaming every minute detail of Obama’s administration so far, and if something like this happened, it would be an incredible political boon to them for 2012.
If something happens (and for all our sakes, let’s just hope it doesn’t), it could be a game changer in 2012.  A side note:  there is a possibility that terrorists could time an attack so it coincided with and influenced an election.  Many of Bin Laden’s taped messages were released at politically sensitive times.