"...We haven't been attacked in 4 1/2 years..."

[kentuck]

George Bush said this in his speech before another friendly audience this morning. Hmmmm-mmm... 4 1/2 years? Of course, before 2001, we had not been attacked by foreigners since 1993? What is the difference?

Is it that those that attacked us 1993 never intended to declare war on us? They tried to bring down the WTC and were able to set off a carbomb that did serious damage to underground parking garage. But the guilty ones were caught and are still sitting in prison. Should we ahve declared war in 1993? After we caught the guilty people, who woud we have declared war upon?

Fast forward to Sept, 2001. Bush is on vacation and so is most of his Administration. Warnings were ignored and we were hit again. So who did the better job protecting our nation, the Democrats or the Republicans? Partisan propaganda aside, logic and facts say that the Democrats did a better job than Bush and the Republicans.

So when Bush says we haven't been hit in 4 1/2 years, that is nothing to brag about. His incompetence is mostly to blame for us getting hit in 2001. Looking at the facts and the memos that were ignored and the vacation time and the intelligence that was left with them from the previous Administration, they had no excuse to not have been more vigilant.

So we need to examine the "not hit in 4 1/2 years" more closely. Was Bush's "war on terror" the correct response? Should he have cleaned up Afghanistan and made an example out of Osama bin Laden? Would that not have done more to stop terrorism than his present insane war?

[phusion]

1. Rummy the murderer said that on Tuesday, also...

on the NewsHour.

[Norquist Nemesis]

2. In the run up to the Iraq Invasion, they were all over the calendar

on when we had been attacked. They threw in the Cole and Kolbar (sp) Towers readily, along with suicide bombings of our allies. So the 4 1/2 years stuff is more crap in the overflowing toilet.

[underpants]

3. I guess anthrax being sent to US Senators doesn't count

Aside from that-I really hate to say this but I will-the first attacks on WTC (Feb.23,1993 5 WEEKS into the Clinton administration) we not embraced with open arms by Americans in the heartland or otherwise. See that was just them New York SEETY folk...you know ;-) all them jews and blacks and foreigners and such.

Tell me that that impression isn't true.

[Ezlivin]

9. Anthrax attacks - ALWAYS FORGOTTEN!

Thanks for reminding everyone of the "forgotten" terrorist attacks.

I suppose the investigation into the anthrax attacks is proceeding with the same efficiency as O.J. Simpson's hunt for Nicole and Ron's killer.

[Skittles]

4. he was given a pass for 3000 lives

it is mind-boggling

[Ignacio Upton]

5. What about Anthrax?

Also, the Catch 22 in this situation is that if we are attacked yet again (God Forbid! Nobody wants to see us attacked again!) then a brand new outpouring of blind jingoism and support our troops magnents will drown out critics and send Bush job approval numbers back to the 70's. One of the secondary reasons for me not wanting another terrorist attack (besides the fact that it means the thugs in Al Qaeda can still hit us, and because of the traumatic loss of life) is the fact that Bush will suck up grief and agony like a bottom feeder and take that post-next attack energy to justify another one of his Neo Con follies.

[Marnieworld]

6. Not to mention

We were "hit" again in 2001 with the Anthrax letters.

We were "hit" again in London this past summer or is that not "we?"

We're "hit" every single day in Iraq and Afghanistan. After all aren't we fighting the "terrorists" there so we don't fight them here? If we are engaging "the enemy" and the "terrorists" are in Iraq then the "terrorists" are killling "us" daily.

3000 killed on 9/11 how much longer until the dead in Iraq matches this? How is one number a tragedy and the other non-existent when they are both totals of Americans killed by terrorists?

[Straight Shooter]

7. How many children have died from child abuse in those 4 1/2 years?

I really like to keep things in perspective. Protecting the *gag* homeland involves a lot more than seeing a terrorist behind every tree. It means protecting those who cannot defend themselves in their own homes.

Obviously I'm open to receiving any statistics as to whether deaths from child abuse were higher under Clinton's terms than they are now. And for the lurking fweepers, please note that the rate/number of abortions is higher under bush than during Clinton's time in the Oval Office.

BTW, Kentuck, you're talking to a stone wall when you try to use logic with a fweeper. So am I. *sigh*

[Kerrytravelers]

11. That's right.

Under Clinton, abortions were DOWN over 25%.
Under bush, abortions are UP over 35%.

And who is the "anti-abortion" president again?

[wryter2000]

8. That's exactly my point!

We aren't scheduled for another attack here until 2009, and with all the Americans we've sent abroad, why would Bin Laden bother with an elaborate attack here?

Where are people's brains!?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

10. Here's what should have been done

1. Bush should have read the memos pre-911 and acted on them. Liklihood is that at least some of the hijackers would have been caught, and the plot foiled.

2. If Osama bin Laden was then shown to be a mastermind behind the plot, a request for extradition from Afghanistan should have been made. If it was refused, then UN should have been contacted and a united effort to oust bin Laden and the Taliban could have been launched.

3. bin Laden would have been captured, and we would have left Iraq alone.

4. This is truly wishful thinking, but Bush could have had a chance to mitigate in the Israel/Palestinian dispute and maybe could have helped there. Who knows?

[havocmom]

12. Civil rights violated. Constitution ignored. I call that a massive attack

on America!

Then, weren't there some incidents of random violence here and there? Or doesn't it count when white guys do it?

[BushOut06]

13. Big Deal. How long did we go after the first WTC bombing?

I seem to recall Clinton had an even longer stretch (if you discount the Oklahoma City bombing, which wasn't international terrorism).

[Straight Shooter]

17. Clinton didn't feel the need to "puff up" his record out of proportion.

Clinton just did his job. Being in the Oval Office is a job. It ain't like being knighted by God, which is what bush supporters seem to think.

Anyone who has to make a speech and talk about no attacks in a piddly 4 1/2 years is doing a seriously bad job of understanding defense of the U.S. Terrorists make plans on a 5-year and 10-year agenda. Also I seem to remember a white couple in Texas (correct me if I'm wrong) with an incredible arsenal in their basement, definitely homegrown terrorists. But the White House never made a big issue of their being caught because, well, they're white. And Joe Blow and Sally Moe don't need to know that their biggest threat of dying in their homeland comes from another citizen of the U.S. and not some dark-skinned "furriner."

[Sparkman]

24. Personality contrast: Bill=self-achiever Georg=legacy whore

[exlrrp]

14. A Free Bye on 9/11??

Whats always interesting to me is how the Republicans always give themselves a free bye on 9/11.
Helllloooo?? Reality check here? 9/11 HAPPENED ON THEIR WATCH!! So they say nothing's happened since? WHAT ABOUT THAT??
yes, contrary to what Repubs want the world to beleive, 9/11 happened when they were in charge--and ramping up hostilities with China (remember the spy plane China sent home one piece at a time?) They sure dropped THAT quick enough--now China is our pal for financing the Bush defict!!
So Republicans think they should get a free do-over about 911?? A complete Mulligan?
Oh thats right, they blame the Democrats for 911. THEY couldn't have made a mistake, OH NO!
911 should have gotten Heckuva Job Condi fired (NOTHER comletely inexperienced, inept Bush appointee) but no, Little Miss "who ever would have believed people would fly planes into buildings" was kicked upstairs into further incompetence.
If the Republiocans had not controlled both houses this would have been a one term Presidency. The only people who applaud Bush's presidency besiades republicans is Osama Bin Laden

[ProfessorGAC]

15. The Time Between Foreign Agent Terrorist Acts. . .

. . .on the U.S. mainland prior to that was 8+ years, but Silverspoon's supporters say that Clinton did nothing. So, apparently we can go 8+ years doing nothing, but 4+ years is proof of something.

In fact, there is no fight that can be taken to anyone that will truly prevent terrorism. Finding a way to co-exist in a way that meets everyone's needs would have been the most productive methodology. That, however, is harder than dropping bombs.
The Professor

[magellan]

16. And in 4 1/2 years he hasn't captured bin Laden or prosecuted anyone

...for the anthrax attacks.

But hey, he started a hell of a war in Iraq and is working hard on another with Iran. And you know, it's hard work fixing the evidence to spread fear and start wars.

[underpants]

21. You realize that Mousaoui has been turned into a "9/11 linked arrest"

Of course he was IN JAIL on that horrible day. No matter. They have plenty of survivors who have said (I can understand this) that he is their symbol of 9/11 and his punishment is the one they want. This of course glosses over the fact that he is the only person we have arrested (aside from KSM who is in a super secret location) who is at all connected with 9/11.

[magellan]

22. You're right, I MUST get over this habit of only telling the truth

Of course there is Moussaoui...whom the gov't showed no interest in till AFTER 9/11.

Damn, I did it again!!

[magellan]

28. Yep, he was arrested for immigration violations

If it weren't for FBI agent Colleen Rowley trying time and again to investigate the flight school angle, Moussaoui might simply have been deported.

[Sparkman]

18. My focus would be on the 9/11 EXCUSE to a pre-emptive attack for OIL.

Because dilegence against "terrorists" will be the chosen solution by any U.S. political party.
BUT ignoring liberties at the expense of security should be the message stressed. Clamping down on free speech and work place tolerance has a greater potential for altering the lives of ALL Americans. Politicizing those tragic deaths to advance the neo-cons Imperial Death Star projects needs media exposure...just how to accomplish this self-introspection deserves our effort.

[Stephanie]

19. Plus it's an outright lie because we had anthrax attacks

Or maybe he means we haven't been hit by Arab terrorists in 4 1/2 years.

[raccoon]

20. ..and when that strain of anthrax was traced back to a gov't lab

that story went conveniently down the memory hole.

It's amazing how law enforcement knew almost immediately who was responsible for hijacking the planes on 9/11, but after 4 1/2 years, still haven't found the perp for the anthrax mailings, nor Osama Ben Forgotten...

[zbdent]

23. You know, they're not going to count the Alabama church fires

until they can blame a lefty . . .

[SammyWinstonJack]

25. Democrats did a better job even while being hindered by republicans

Accused of wagging the dog and watering down President Clinton's requests for legislation for tougher terrorism laws. Tell me again, FReepers which Party takes our national security more seriously, and don't lie, especially to yourselves.

[6000eliot]

26. That proves nothing,

because you can't prove a negative!

[kentuck]

27. and we cannot prove that there were any plans to attack us again...

It may have been a one-shot plan. But, they state as fact that they have prevented attacks when the likelihood is there were no attacks planned...