Clinton kept us safer

[Jetdawgg]

[url]http://www.fbi.gov/publications/terror/terror99.pdf[/url]

Reagan/Bush 306 acts of terrorism against US interests at home and abroad. During Clinton only 151.

Scroll to page 43 for details

[MnJetFan]

But how many times did Clinton due anything about it?

its a typo/rushed post, she meant,
sen. clinton said we are safer

[url="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/06/us/politics/06dems.html?ex=1338782400&en=767ee81221e2c496&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss"]http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/06/us/politics/06dems.html?ex=1338782400&en=767ee81221e2c496&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss[/url]

[Come Back to NY]

what's funny is leftist moron's like dumdawg will point to a single page in this report as evidence of there ridiculous point, without even reading what they deem (or classify as it may be) as a "terorist incident" in the same report....

[Jetdawgg]

The numbers speak for themselves. Mr. Clinton did a better job. The activity under Mr. Reagan I will say was a new venture to manage so the activity level being high can be misleading.

It is clear to me that Mr. clinto who is much brighter than Mr. Bush (1 or 2) had a plan that worked,

These are FBI numbers generally a republican/right wing stronghold.

[Come Back to NY]

[QUOTE=Jetdawgg]The numbers speak for themselves. Mr. Clinton did a better job. The activity under Mr. Reagan I will say was a new venture to manage so the activity level being high can be misleading.

It is clear to me that Mr. clinto who is much brighter than Mr. Bush (1 or 2) had a plan that worked,

These are FBI numbers generally a republican/right wing stronghold.[/QUOTE]

they do speak for themselves and it's obvious you can't add considering you are foolishly trying to compare a 12 year period to a period of under 8 years......of course the year 2000 in which major incidents were carried out successfully is not even factored in...never mind what is classified as a terrorist activity

your greater point is indicative of your usual ignorance... clinton's plan of not confronting terrorists rather letting them sit in solitude to train and plan was really bright! :yes: :yes:

[Jetdawgg]

These are not my numbers. I did not make the classifications. Again this is from the FBI a right wing strong hold.

Mr Bush's plan of making more terrorists by having torture sessions in GTMO and Abu Gharib is alive and more than welcome by you and a hosts of others here. Iraq is the only place that we have to worry about terrorists coming from if you watch the FOX Noise Channel.

FOX Noise who don't even report on the war in Iraq anymore as they find Paris Hilton and Anna Nicole Smith easier to brainwash its viewers with.

[url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070611/ap_en_tv/ap_on_tv_fox_s_war[/url]

Recently Mr Powell stated that GTMO needs to close. A concept that people like myself stated long ago. Eventually the 'right' may begin to catch up to the rest of us.

I only hope so.

Clinton's plan of dealing with terrorists worked as the attacks were down in his period of time. Attacks over the 12 year republican period equaled 25.5. Attacks during the Clinton period equalled 21 (7 years).

Still lower no matter how you don't like to see it.

[PlumberKhan]

[QUOTE=Come Back to NY]...clinton's plan of not confronting terrorists rather letting them sit in solitude to train and plan was really bright! :yes: :yes:[/QUOTE]


[url]http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-09-29-cover-small-arms_x.htm[/url]

[Warfish]

Just out of curiosity, Libs and Indies.....

If you had to lay blame for 9/11 on a President or Presidents, where would you lay that bame? I.e. 20% Clinton/80% Bush or 10% Carter/1% Clinton/etc, etc, etc.

I'd be interested to hear who "gets the credit" for the Events of 9/11 in your eyes.

Oh, and if you think 9/11 was a Bush-Led Conspiracy and there never was any AQ involvemnet, please......go away.

[bitonti]

[QUOTE=Come Back to NY]
your greater point is indicative of your usual ignorance... clinton's plan of not confronting terrorists rather letting them sit in solitude to train and plan was really bright! :yes: :yes:[/QUOTE]

[IMG]http://content.cartoonbox.slate.com/?feature=48419379f8c88aa131ebadf4a9b72d70[/IMG]

[Jetdawgg]

[QUOTE=bitonti][IMG]http://content.cartoonbox.slate.com/?feature=48419379f8c88aa131ebadf4a9b72d70[/IMG][/QUOTE]

:yes:

[Jetdawgg]

[QUOTE=Warfish]Just out of curiosity, Libs and Indies.....

If you had to lay blame for 9/11 on a President or Presidents, where would you lay that bame? I.e. 20% Clinton/80% Bush or 10% Carter/1% Clinton/etc, etc, etc.

I'd be interested to hear who "gets the credit" for the Events of 9/11 in your eyes.

Oh, and if you think 9/11 was a Bush-Led Conspiracy and there never was any AQ involvemnet, please......go away.[/QUOTE]

I would lay the blame more on Mr. Bush. His presidency could not lead me to think otherwise

[Winstonbiggs]

[QUOTE=Warfish]Just out of curiosity, Libs and Indies.....

If you had to lay blame for 9/11 on a President or Presidents, where would you lay that bame? I.e. 20% Clinton/80% Bush or 10% Carter/1% Clinton/etc, etc, etc.

I'd be interested to hear who "gets the credit" for the Events of 9/11 in your eyes.

Oh, and if you think 9/11 was a Bush-Led Conspiracy and there never was any AQ involvemnet, please......go away.[/QUOTE]

I think it was a collective failure starting with Reagan and the marine barrack attack in Lebanon. Carter did respond with economic pressure that ultimately got the hostages out. After they were out we could have further responded but didn't. Lebanon was the first true cut and run followed by Somalia with Clinton which will now be followed by Iraq with Bush.

The thing Bush doesn't get credit for is the serious law enforcement effort that has gone into monitoring potential attacks and the coperation we have with other countries in this matter.

[dmaynard]

[QUOTE=Jetdawgg]I would lay the blame more on Mr. Bush. His presidency could not lead me to think otherwise[/QUOTE]

In just 8 months, Bush's Presidency had more to do with 9/11 than the previous 8 years? Wow. Do you type so fast you don't even have time to think?

[nuu faaola]

[QUOTE=Winstonbiggs]I think it was a collective failure starting with Reagan and the marine barrack attack in Lebanon. Carter did respond with economic pressure that ultimately got the hostages out. After they were out we could have further responded but didn't. Lebanon was the first true cut and run followed by Somalia with Clinton which will now be followed by Iraq with Bush.

The thing Bush doesn't get credit for is the serious law enforcement effort that has gone into monitoring potential attacks and the coperation we have with other countries in this matter.[/QUOTE]

Collective failure is absolutely the right way to put it, Winston.

While there are signs we were taking terrorism more seriously during the 1990s --elevating counter-terrorism into the cabinet, successfully thwarting the LAX attack-- I think it is safe to say that it required a successful attack on our soil to fully engage us on the topic.

Go back to the 2000 debates. The subject hardly even came up. Gore talked about it a little, Bush hardly at all.

Even still, our law-enforcement agencies had enough intell to stop 9/11, but they didn't talk to each other and lacked the imagination to connect the dots.

Now we get it, as a nation, and that --more than anything Bush or Clinton did-- makes us safer.

Now if we'd just get around to implementing the 9/11 commission's recs on port security...

[Jetdawgg]

[QUOTE=dmaynard]In just 8 months, Bush's Presidency had more to do with 9/11 than the previous 8 years? Wow. Do you type so fast you don't even have time to think?[/QUOTE]

The attack occurred on his watch. The effort had been underway for sometime. They waited until we were sleep at the wheel. Typical of this presidency.

Incompetence is the leading indicator of it. The enemies knew and know this also.

[Jetdawgg]

[QUOTE=Winstonbiggs]I think it was a collective failure starting with Reagan and the marine barrack attack in Lebanon. Carter did respond with economic pressure that ultimately got the hostages out. After they were out we could have further responded but didn't. Lebanon was the first true cut and run followed by Somalia with Clinton which will now be followed by Iraq with Bush.

The thing Bush doesn't get credit for is the serious law enforcement effort that has gone into monitoring potential attacks and the coperation we have with other countries in this matter.[/QUOTE]

Agree with ya Winny. We needed a real response to the Marine Barracks attack: [url]http://www.beirutveterans.org/[/url]

The law enforcement effort by Mr. Bush some can say has stripped us of many rights

[Warfish]

[QUOTE=Jetdawgg]The attack occurred on his watch. The effort had been underway for sometime. They waited until we were sleep at the wheel. Typical of this presidency.

Incompetence is the leading indicator of it. The enemies knew and know this also.[/QUOTE]

Thats an interesting take. Can you list some of the obvious and public acts of incompetence Bush displayed prior to 9/11 that would have led the enemy to this outcome?

[dmaynard]

[QUOTE=Warfish]Thats an interesting take. Can you list some of the obvious and public acts of incompetence Bush displayed prior to 9/11 that would have led the enemy to this outcome?[/QUOTE]

And while he is at it, the competence and vigilence that Clinton showed toward terrorism. Let me get some popcorn. This should be good.

[bitonti]

[QUOTE=dmaynard]In just 8 months, Bush's Presidency had more to do with 9/11 than the previous 8 years? Wow. Do you type so fast you don't even have time to think?[/QUOTE]


I blame FDR. He had 4 terms to deal with 9/11 and 60 years in advance!