But the economy boomed under Clinton!!!!

THIS is absolutely beautiful. THANK YOU for stating the TRUTH in such an unavoidably, clear way. Unfortunately the liberals have NO COMMON SENSE so they will never understand or accept what you've written. It doesn't matter how true your words are, they will spin it however they can to make Bush look bad.

The bottom line is: WE HAVE NOT HAD ONE SINGLE ATTACK ON AMERICAN SOIL SINCE 9/11. Why do you think that IS people??? It is because Bush is STEADFAST and UNWAVERING. He flat out told us after 9/11 (when almost everyone supported him) that this was NOT going to be a quick process, and he KNEW that the majority would support him in the beginning, but after time he would have less and less support. But he KNEW what needed to be done to protect our country and HE'S BEEN DOING IT... regardless of how many ignorant and easily swayed supporters have turned on him or how low his approval ratings go. THAT is a strong President. To hold steady and not be swayed by those who become soft and whose vision becomes clouded. I can guarantee you that had he been pursuaded and backed out of Iraq prematurely because of the pressure, we most definitely would have experienced another attack of some sort, if not multiple attacks! And THEN what!? Then it would be "That freakin' Bush, he backed out to soon! NOW look what's happened!" He's damned if he does and he's damned if he doesn't. But even with all the disrespectful comments he receives about his supposed lack of intelligence, in my opinion he's smarter and stronger than the vast majority. He made a vow to stick to the mission for as long as it would take, and he's sticking to his word. The problem is that we were all supposed to "NEVER FORGET", but sadly, it's clear that all has been forgotten for most Americans. When the going gets tough, most Americans want to tuck their tails and run which is pretty sad.

Lolly..i second that girl!

To che hater.
I don'y know if you were serious but the economy did NOT boom under clinton. the lowest unemployment was about 5+% while it's highest was 15%.
And (if you were serious) you should remember that we were in a full blown Recession when President bush took the helm. Oh yeah, Unemployment is like 4.2% right now BTW. DEV

Che Hater (love the name btw!), where have you been? The economy has been booming under Bush v2 as well.

kidding guys...i was being sarcastic.

You are living in a land of delusion Bush is destroying the country and you are helping him. We are much less safe. We are running up a vast deficit (not very conservative). We are losing civil liberties and basically bush is pissing on the constitution.

how are we much less safe? Are the above statements false?

Your list of terrorist attacks during the "reign" of each President is disingenous to say the least. Surely you cannot believe that the 11th sep attacks were the sole terrorist attack on US interests during Bush's term as President so far? Doesnt Bush repeatedly mention the terrorists in Iraq and Afganistan in his addresses to the media? Infact I suspect the reason for neglecting the terrorist attacks since the 11th of sep attacks is because there have been so many that any list would have to be an openended one.

Indeed anyone (whether liberal, conservative or with a belief in another political philosophy) who believes Bush's 8 months in office gave reason to attack is being simplistic. Presumably they are democrats who cannot understand why a dim view of THEIR foreign policy could be taken by others around the world.

I'd like to point out that Clinton had been in office for little over 1 month when the WTC bombing of 26th of Feb 1993 occured. Perhaps anti-bush people should focus on his dads foreign policy as a factor in that bombing. Not that is WAS but that it logically COULD BE.

"I can truly say with confidence that we are safer today than we were with Clinton." ---- You say such a thing yet lend no facts, changed circumstance or anything substantial to your arguement. Possibly u believe the occupation of Iraq is a factor in your being "safer" since it is included in the same paragraph. Iraq was never a threat to the US under Saddam as he stood prior to the invasion. A threat to US interests, yes, in the same way a number of countrys can be as that is their SOVEREIGN RIGHT. It is only when that threat is realised that action should occur..... sorry, Im getting off topic. Iraq and Iraqi citizens had nothing to do with any of the terrorist attacks committed prior to the US led invasion, all of which u cast aside in your analysis of terrorists attacks committed under each president. How does occupying Iraq deal with terrorism?

Oh and Lolly....... he may be " smarter and stronger than the vast majority" in the US but I wouldnt spread that around too much as the majority may feel rather insulted!

Sean – when I said terrorist attacks during the Bush reign, I am referring to and against the US and/or US interests (embassies, etc.). Good point about the 1993 attacks but the point of the post is that he never dealt with the issue at hand.

"I can truly say with confidence that we are safer today than we were with Clinton...� – I am telling you how I FEEL; and the FACT is that the US has not been hit with a terrorist attack since 01. And, I do believe that the “occupation� or whatever you want to call it is one of the main reasons we are safer. Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups are spending their time/money/resources in Iraq and not in planning to kill innocent people here in the states. There is definitely a correlation.

Am I being selfish? Hell yeah. I really don’t want to live like Israelis, where they have to worry about suicide bombers killing off the population. Do you?

Very excellant post! I wrote a simular one a while back, here it is:
http://www.techystuff.info/?p=25
Although...I do believe that yours is better. Thanks for opening the eyes for some people, those that believe what you say instead of calling it propoganda!

Matt - thanks buddy. I appreciate the love.

I wouldn't say we are more or less safe now. We are in the same boat. There was only one attack on American soil while Clinton was in office too. I see 5 attacks total listed above. 5. Now think about how many suicide bombers, roadside bombs, RPGs, etc. have attacked our troops in Iraq.

Maybe you feel safer because you're not in the military.

We did the right thing going into Afghanistan; we did not when we entered Iraq. Now our resources are stretched too thin to handle either.

Oh, and Matt, it isn't propoganda... It has to be believable before it can be called that

Gravee - American soil also includes embassies and US ships. I know, I served 8 years in the USMC and spent a year of that in Mogadishu Somalia in 1993. And, you can't compare terrorist activity to a time of war. Of course, the end result is the same – Americans being killed – but in war, they are soldiers who knew the risk when signing up; with terrorism – they are killing our children.

Now, I am no war monger. I hate war. I hate seeing innocent lives being taken. But in order for there to be peace, there has to be war. History will tell you that. And, I would rather not live like our friends in Israel who have to worry daily about suicide bombers; so let’s take the war to them. Selfish? Hell yeah it is. But it’s impossible to negotiate with terrorism of any kind and extreme Islam will not rest until the world is converted or decapitated.

Like I said. Afghanistan is where the majority of our focus should be. We invaded Iraq and overthrew their leader who kept his people under control (even if it was through unconventional means). But, I don't think we needed war in Iraq for peace here. Radical islam wasn't really a factor in Iraq until we went went there.

Gravee - you see that's where you and I findamentally disagree. Radical Islam has been terrorizing others for centuries, dating back to a time when all religions were doing it. They have not yet made that next leap as Christianity, Judaism, etc. has.

Oh, and Bin Laden declared war against the US when Clinton was in office.

Fuck bin-laden. I say we shove a nulear warhead so far up his as he'll be shitting uranium for a month.

And what I meant was simply that radical islam was not the suicide bomb/RPG/IED machine in Iraq until we gave it the freedom to be such.

I love it... well, that is in that it makes me laugh at how ridiculous it is. When we play loud rap music at enemy combatants, it's "torture". When Saddam electrocutes people, gases masses and rounds up opposers to have them shot he is controlling his people "through unconventional means".

Ah, Jaimie... Ba-da-ba-ba-ba, I'm lovin' it...

Well, that is whenever people (and I use the term very loosely) put words in my mouth.

As much as I think being forced to listen to rap music as torturous, I never accused troops of torture, or such a method as being torture. No one even mentioned that. Now before you go on your whole "I was making a comment on what all the dumb liberals think," the ridiculous part is I'm willing to bet you can't find anyone who said that seriously.

God forbid I should us a big word like unconventional. I guess I'll try and keep the big words to a minimum for you. ... Are you saying his methods were (big word here) conventional? "Dur, I have no real argument here, I'll just make fun of his word choice. I'm smart. I like grapes."

Oh and before you say how (big word here, too) immature that was, grow up. That's right, I, the childish liberal, am telling you, the uninformed conservative, to grow up.

Anyway, you have to give Saddam credit for one thing. Even though he was a terrible dictator and murdered countless numbers of his own civillians in cruel ways, he had a 100% approval rating. Let's hope Bush doesn't pick up on that one...

When you were in Mogadishu, were you in 2/8?

negative...i was attached to the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit. Were you in the Corps?

Negative. I have several family members who have served in the military; with a total of 2 purple hearts between Vietnam and Korea. Also my Lieutenant at my first security job is a formar SEAL. My uncle has worked for the government for several years. The work he's proud of most is when he worked personal security for Ron Brown.

I do know my military.

By Urban Conservative:

Radical Islam has been terrorizing others for centuries, dating back to a time when all religions were doing it. They have not yet made that next leap as Christianity, Judaism, etc. has.

By, well, me:

I know it was a little while back in this discussion but still...
Not to dampen your dislike of Islam or anything, but Classical Islam (by which I'm referring to 8th through 17th Century, when 'all the religions' were terrorizing others) was decidedly not 'terrorizing' others as you say. It would be enlighting to find a source which can demonstrate how Islamic nations were terrorizing others, despite clear requirements in the Qu'ran stating that non-Muslims in Muslim countries must be protected and that there can be no complusion in religion (so they couldn't terrorize other groups to follow their own religion.)

Until the advent of moderninity in the 19th century, and the associated belief in an objective cultural experience, Radical Islam as you call it would not have been able to exist. Radical Islam has made 'that leap', the only problem being that the Reformation (though I'm reluctant to use the term) of the Islamic religion is what brought about this idea of terrorizing others.

If it makes any sense, i don't dislike Islam at all. I dislike those in all religions that take it to the extreme where people's lives are annihilated. Okay, and maybe terrorizing wasn’t the appropriate word…how about killing others because they didn’t believe in the same God. And yes, I am talking about the Jew and Christians too!

Urban

Although I can agree from a simplistic point of view when you really dig into the situation you find that your analyszing the symptoms not the cause of the problem.

The U.S. DoD and CIA created Osama bin Laden's terrorist playbook back in the days of the Afghani war with Russia. We taugh bin Laden and his entire network of "freedom fighters" in the Hindu Kush reagion of Afghanistan how to fight and win against an imperial power in the 1980s.

The CIA in its SOP was in the mode of train-the-trainers - in other words the U.S. government taught al-qaeda how to create training camps, how to recruit new terrorists into those camps and how to plan, execute and recover from terrorist operations against the Soviets buy running and hiding from them.

After that war and the efforts of the CIA to use and abuse the Mujahedin they tried to rein in bin Ladens power and control his "freedom fighters", the natural reaction of the Mujahedin to an imperial power trying to wipe them out ? Terrorism and guerrilla warfare were the solution they had been trainined to use and so they have been using it against the U.S. every since.

So lets ask ourselves who the hawks were back in the day when afghanistan was at war with Russia - hmmm - lets see that would be none other than Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. So ultimately I blame Cheney and Rumsfeld for creating the al-qaeda army as a covert military arm of the DoD and then when losing control of them they tried to kill them off and made them our enemy.

Are we safer today? No we are not safer because al-qaeda still exists, the men who tried to wipe out the Mujahedin are still in power in the U.S. - namely Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush and there isnt any reason to think that al-qaeda is going to go away simpy because we have stopped attacks on our soil since 9/11.

Clinton failed miserably at responding to terrorism but he understood the enemy more so than Bush does. Declaring war on al-qaeda was the biggest favor that ole GW could have done for Osama - it justified him, raised al-qaeda to a world player and defined it as "the" preeminent force to fight back against the U.S. before 9/11 CNN didnt announce that Osama had anything to say, only the intelligence community cared about his videos, now Osama speaks and the world listens - thanks GW!

God, this blog entry is so f**king stupid I can hardly contain myself. You all realize Bush IGNORED PDBs and the Clinton Administration's warnings right? THEY DIDN'T EVEN HAVE A MEETING. Don't forget this. Bush was all about Iraq and Iraq only since before he got in office and he wasn't going to let some pesky "facts" get in the way. Plain and simple, BUSH is responsible for the 3,000 or so people who died on 911 and let's not forget the nearly 4000 soldiers who he is responsible for getting killed. Those are the facts. And the ignorance in the defense that Bush couldn't be held accountable because he was only in office for 8 months is such complete nonsense it doesn't even deserve a response.

Louie - I am not even going to comment on your gibberish. Get off those meds.

He makes a good point. It is not a valid defense to say he was only in office for 8 months and therefore could not have known. I disagree that 9/11 is Bush's fault; even though I know if he could have prevented it, he wouldn't have anyway.

Oh, and gibberish? Yeah, those words "facts" and "ignorance" mean absolutely nothing...

Does the pharmaceutical industry have meds that cause people to abandon reason and assail others simply on the grounds of disagreeing with their opinion? If so, I imagine you're on them. If not, that kind of mindless bullying must be standard procedure from the conservative's debate handbook.

Let me speak your language: Go back to your hut of child molestation.

As in any debate one can find “evidence� and/or “facts� to support their side. Such is this debate. I am not a liberal nor am I a conservative; I am a realist. As a realist I am able to look at topics subjectively and not apply personal beliefs, bias, or other political or religious subjectivity. You ask, “Terrorism: Are we safer today than we were with Clinton?� This question can neither be proved nor disproved because how does one prove or disprove it? The only thing one may do to support their belief is to illustrating known events as “facts� to support their hypothesis. The one who initiated this question uses incidents and defines them in a manner to support their belief. But let us look at the facts subjectively before we rush to judgment.

Using the events provided
• 1993 World Trade Center bombing - killed six and injured 1,000.
• 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia - killed five soldiers.
• 1996 al-Khobar towers bombing in Saudi Arabia - killed 19 and injured 200 soldiers.
• 1998 bombing of US embassies in Africa - killed 257 and injured 5,000.
• 2000 bombing of the USS Cole - killed 17 and injured 3 sailors.
We note that first only one of these events occurred on American soil though Americans were the primary target in each occurrence. Secondly we note that there was an occurrence approximately every 2 years.

Now insert the other event provided and we could deduce that terrorists strike on American soil approximately ever 8 years. However, since it has only been 7 years since the WTC attack that currently can only be considered a theory.
• 2001 World Trade Center bombing (all planned during the Clinton Administration) – killed 3,000 + innocent people.
I for one do not believe we are safer nor are we in greater danger because if you look at events that have occurred since 911 you will discover little has changed. World terrorist attacks continued approximately every 2 years. I will not bore you with statistics or details but do you recall the bombings in Spain, England, Philippines, etc. I know, you’re going to say those did not target primarily Americans. No but
• 2002 Karachi, Pakistan bombing - outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12.
• 2003 Riyadh, Saudi Arabia suicide bombers - killed 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners.
• 2004 Riyadh, Saudi Arabia - the offices of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, take foreign oil workers hostage in a nearby residential compound, leaving 22 people dead including one American.
• 2004 Riyadh, Saudi Arabia - terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2 other Americans and BBC cameraman killed by gun attacks.
• 2004 Jeddah, Saudi Arabia - terrorists storm the U.S. consulate, killing 5 consulate employees. 4 terrorists were killed by Saudi security.
• 2005 Amman, Jordan Suicide bombers - hit 3 American hotels, Radisson, Grand Hyatt, and Days Inn, in Amman, Jordan, killing 57.
• 2006 Damascus, Syria - attack by four gunmen on the American embassy was foiled.
• 2007 Athens, Greece - the U.S. embassy was fired on by an anti-tank missile causing damage but no injuries.
• 2007 Algeria - More than 60 people are killed, including 11 United Nations staff members, when two car bombs detonate near Algeria's Constitutional Council and the United Nations offices.
There are other incidents but I list the above because they all had one common link, Al-Qaeda. In each of these incidents Al-Qaeda was either suspected, directly linked or claimed responsibility for it. So like I said how can one say we are safer; especially when you consider that it was Osama bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda behind the attacks and we missed our chance to get him when we tracked him via his cell phone for over three months in the White Mountain area of Afghanistan. But that’s another debate.

So, “Terrorism: Are we safer today than we were with Clinton?� How does one actually prove or disprove the basis for their belief. The realist in me says that since the total number of occurrences remains consistent we are neither safer nor less safe. However, if one were to go strictly by body count then one must assume, and I did say assume, that we are less safe.

Clinton - 304
Bush – 3000 + (and that does not take into consideration the nearly 4000 killed in Iraq and Afghanistan)

So what I would suggest to everyone is to look at events subjectively and objectively and quit letting CNN or FOX formulate your beliefs for you. Letting them do so renders you a mindless minion of that force and not a self thinking, thought provoking individual.

JT

PS
If we cannot prevent a guesstimated 12 million individuals from entering our country illegally how can anyone believe there are safe?
If one can sit anywhere in the world with a computer and shut down electrical grids, alter water flow thru dams, interrupt the operation of a nuclear reactor or any one of numerous other computer operated functions how can a rational person believe we are, or ever will be, 100% safe.
Also, before you get any ideas I served my country in the military as did my 3 brothers and father and numerous other ancestors back to Washington and the Indian Wars. I am also a retired government computer security specialist. So do not try to tag me as unpatriotic or a ranting “Chicken Little�.

JT is the most sane person in the room, both administrations have left our country wide open to attack from groups who have publicly stated in word and action that they want us dead for over 20 years. Neither of these political buffoons deserve any credit for preventing terrorism or even curbing it in any significant way.

Since 9/11 the only reports about terrorist attempts on U.S. soil have been vague without evidence, detail, suspects, trials or dead terrorists to photograph. We regularly hear about how "multiple attacks" have been thwarted since 9/11 but never any evidence - Bush claims the details cant be shared due to national security but thats crap - if an attack occurred and is in the past the public deserves to know about it. The administration would kill (almost) to be able to have another attack to point to as to how they have protected - the fact that they dont and only give vague insinuations that there have been attempts shows there is nothing there.

So no I don't feel any safer or less safe under Bush vs Clinton - they are both incompetent. But I certainly wouldn't want to be an Iraqi these days they get at least 1 attack every day of the week.

To Devon, I don't know what planet you're living on, or where you get your facts, but check out this set of statistics:

http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/20000112_1.html