"Bush kept us safe after 9-11" I'm sick and tired of hearing this non-point

[mw]

Republicans are re-ramping up this talking point. "Bush kept us safe after 9-11".

Why are Democrats quiet on this point? It's infuriating!

Bush "keeping us safe"--no attacks on American soil--from 9-11-01 to 1-20-09 is NOT remarkable.
Clinton "kept us safe"--no attacks on American soil--from 2-26-93 (first WTC)to 1-20-01--SEVEN MONTHS LONGER than Bush.
Bush I: NO attacks on US soil
Reagan: NO attacks on US soil
Carter: NO attacks on US soil
Ford: FALN bombing in NY on 1/24/75
Nixon: NO attacks on US soil
Johnson: NO attacks on US soil
Kennedy: NO attacks on US soil
Ike: NO attacks on US soil
Truman: NO attacks on US soil
Roosevelt: NO attacks on US soil (unless you want to include Pearl Harbor, not a "terrorist" attack but a country)
Hoover: NO attacks on US soil
Coolidge: NO attacks on US soil
Harding: NO attacks on US soil.
Wilson: Wall Street bombing on 9/16/20

The fact is, Bush's presidency is remarkable because of the attack on 9-11, not because there wasn't a second attack. And other Presidents didn't have to torture or wiretap to keep us safe

Republicans will respond by redefining "on American soil", like "Well, Clinton had the USS Cole bombing". But that wasn't US soil. If you want to compare attacks on all American interests worldwide, then Bush (and Clinton and others) have had several attacks during their presidencies: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html

It's pissing me off that Republicans made this point throughout the campaign and no one called them on it. And recently Republicans have started to resurrect the point.

[dkf]

1. Did he really stop anything?

I'd like to know because it doesn't sound like he diddly squat to me.

[CrispyQ]

2. The best answer is this:

"Total economic collapse is not keeping America safe, you stupid shit."

[WinkyDink]

10. My response: "He only needed the once." And by "needed", I mean "per$$$onally."

[EFerrari]

72. Thank you. Plus, there were two anthrax attacks after 9/11

and zip done about that case until they framed Bruce Ivins and, framed him unsuccessfully at that.

[bullimiami]

3. bush had exactly 1 "ONE" major attack to protect us from during his presidency and it was 9/11.

HE FAILED ABSOLUTELY and then proceeded to use the event to grab the power to attempt to destroy our constitutional democracy and our economy and to grab power and wealth for his friends and his party.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

14. Exactly

Should the fact that we didn't happen to have any further terrorist attacks on our soil AFTER 9/11 (except, of course, if you don't count the as-yet-unsolved Anthrax attacks) negate the fact that 3000 people died on 09/11 and that Bush, et. al were clearly asleep at the wheel no matter how much you try to spin it otherwise?
Does the fact that we didn't happen to have any further terrorist attacks on our soil AFTER 9/11 negate the fact that Bush sent 4000+ US Soldiers/personnel to death in an invasion/occupation that was totally unwarranted by the actual facts and, as we have since learned, based on lies and crass manipulation of the highest(or lowest) order?

I don't know what most people think but I think not- on both counts.

:argh:

[skooooo]

4. How many Amercan soliders died after 9-11

...and to what end?

[msongs]

5. by this logic he is RESPONSIBLE for 9/11...and he may well be so actually nt

[90-percent]

6. The corollary

However, Bush let 3,000 Americans die on 9-11. In an incident that history is screaming; "9-11 could have been prevented if the USA didn't have a such a corrupt life failure for a President at the time."

-90% jimmy

[alsame]

7. Anthrax attacks. n/t

[Why Syzygy]

8. Excellent assessment.

k/r

He made every other spot on the planet more DANGEROUS.

[WinkyDink]

9. I have made this point repeatedly. DECADES of "safe" post 12/07/41, and NOBODY used that fact as

some kind of Presidential accomplishment.

[iamthebandfanman]

11. yah i hate it too

and im with you about the cole...
if you arent talking about attacks outside the 50 states, there have been plenty under tons of presidents...

embassies have always been favorite targets of 'terrorists'

[mix]

12. great post

This rhetorical shimmy, that 43 kept us safe after not keeping us safe, should be easily knocked down, why it continues unchallenged is beyond me...

[Imagevision]

37. everyone forgot that Clinton kept us safe after first WTC attacks longer then Bush did on

they keep harping the same garbage that Bush kept us safe but not one MSM has mentioned the fact that there were no other attacks after the first one made at the WTC... there is intentional ignorance!

Clinton "kept us safe"--no attacks on American soil--from 2-26-93 (first WTC)to 1-20-01--SEVEN MONTHS LONGER than Bush.

[mw]

85. EXACTLY! This point is what peeves me the most. nt

nt

[suston96]

13. Safe? Tell that to families of the Americans Killed In Action in Iraq and Afghanistan......

....and the thousands of permanently disabled in body and brains who served there.

Tell these Americans that they were or are "safe".

Edited for this: http://icasualties.org/Iraq/index.aspx

[MarjorieG]

15. Bush made the world less safe, a bigger problem. Never mentions terrorism, which has increased.

[L. Coyote]

16. Bush stole Florida 2000, so we could say he made us less safe. After all, he was attacked.

The idea that the attack was directed at the People or the Democracy is absurd.
The attack was directed at the US Military/industrial complex.
President Gore may not have been attacked, simply put, so stealing the Florida election may have played a role in causing 9/11 to happen.

[HughBeaumont]

17. Not to mention it's a logical fallacy - cause and effect.

CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP

"Why are you clapping?"

"DUH! To keep the TIGERS from attacking me, of course."

"But . . . there aren't any tigers anywhere."

"Damn, this clapping thing's working better than I thought."

SAME damned thing.

Yet the worst terrorist attack on American soil happens on BEWSH'S watch (and arguably, with BEWSH's foreknowledge . . . I mean, what, only 11 or more nations warned him no less than 40 times) and they still don't see the disconnect . . . they still don't see how absolutely DUMB the whole "becauz of Bush, no terrst attcks sins 9/11" statement is.

Unreachable and in fairy tale land until the end times, I guess.

[mw]

18. Yep. But instead of "clapping", Bush tortured, renditioned, and wiretapped

All the other Presidents "kept us safe" without trashing the Constitution.

[Friday]

21. And Thank you

I love all the great info I read and learn here. Y'all ROCK!

[Friday]

19. Thank you

Thank you, Thank you. I spend a lot of time discussing politics on CafeMom but am still learning so have been keeping quiet on the "Bush kept us safe" claims. Your info is much appreciated.

Is it just me or are the Reps complete hypocrites? They constantly attacked us for questioning Dubya and have been worse than any Dem I ever met about Obama.

[mw]

20. It's not just you

Republicans are hypocrites.

Hypocrisy defines them. Think of them as modern-day Pharisees.

[LynnTheDem]

22. Bush DIDN'T keep us safe BEFORE 911. After being warned.

Bush was warned the levees would fail.

BEFORE Katrina.

Bush ignored that, too.

CLINTON kept us safe for BOTH of his ENTIRE TERMS.

[mw]

23. You're actually factually incorrect there, although I agree with your sentiment

I think the important point is to be clear about the facts.

And the fact is that Clinton did have a terrorist attack on the US: the first WTC attacks. Then Clinton kept us safe for the remainder of his term.

The most important point is: Yes, Bush had an attack...but its COMPLETELY UNREMARKABLE--and it defends NOTHING (like torture, etc)--to say "Bush protected America from a second attack." It's ridiculous.

[LynnTheDem]

25. Clinton sure kept us safe longer than bUsh did.

But fact is, George W. bUsh, his Cartel, and the entire rightwingnuttery are stupid MFing idiots so stupid they don't even know logical fallacy when they spew it.

Logical fallacy a child can see through.

[mw]

26. Agree. Clinton "kept us safe" 7 months longer than Bush

And Clinton didn't torture/rendition/eavesdrop/etc.

[bvar22]

52. Don't overlook this part !

*Bill Clinton apprehended, prosecuted, and imprisoned ALL the perpetrators of the 1st WTC atttack.

He did so:

*without the death of a single American

*without needlessly invading and occupying another country

*without trashing the Constitution

*without Wiretapping Americans

*without needlessly killing 1 MILLION foreigners who had NOTHING TO DO with the attack

*without making the USA an International Pariah

*without spending $1 Trillion Dollars of your children's money

[ejpoeta]

45. but but.... they didn't give a date and time. uggh. why can't you remember

that!!! They told us they were going to do it, but... without the date and time, how could we stop it!!! :sarcasm:

[mw]

58. I know. They didn't give Bush their flight numbers nt

nt

[Berry Cool]

24. And why do they use it? Because when all you have is straws,

straws are what you grasp at.

If there had been 9/11 like attacks on Los Angeles and Chicago after 9/11, they'd say things like "Bush kept New York and Washington safe on that day...at least he kept them from being attacked again. For this he deserves our thanks."

If there had been attacks on all major US cities day after day for all eight years of his presidency, he'd still get their praise..."His policies kept deaths from these attacks to a minimum. By our estimates, three times the people would have died in each attack without his policies. He kept America much safER than it would have been otherwise."

Whatever had happened, they'd just keep moving the goalposts until they could say Lil' Georgie scored a touchdown! Yea! Yea!!!!

[yurbud]

27. ASK: Did he punish Saudi for backing 9/11 hijackers as Congress discovered?

and why did he let Pakistan spirit top al Qaeda leaders out of Tora Bora?

The Joint Congressional Inquiry found that Saudi Arabia backed the hijackers. Bush classified that part of their report and rushed to smooth things over with the Saudis. http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2007/02/probe-this-sen-bob-graham-said-two-911.html

Later, FBI declassified docs showed that a Saudi intel agent picked up two of the hijackers at LAX, set them up in an apartment in his building, and funneled checks to them from the Saudi ambassador's wife. http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2008/03/foia-doc-shows-911commission-lied-about.html

Instead of punishing them, Bush went after Iraq.

When we had Osama bin Laden cornered at Tora Bora, Pakistani intelligence asked to evacuate their Taliban and al Qaeda allies. http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2002/01/28/020128fa_FACT

Instead of punishing them, Bush agreed and went after Iraq.

At the very least, Bush exploited 9/11 to try to give Iraq to his oil company cronies (that part of the war failed miserably).

At worst, he got his friends in Saudi Arabia to do him a big favor, and got the Pakistanis to rein in and release the flying monkeys as needed by the Bush administration.

[Goony 2009]

28. Oklahoma City April 19th, 1995?

How said for the families of the 168 dead that they don't even rank as an "attack" anymore. Guess they're just not important to you?

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Maccagirl]

30. I'm all for remembering and reminding about OKC

Remembering the 168 innocents,
Reminding everyone WHO perpetrated the heinous crime-fascists.

[Zynx]

88. That wasn't an act of foreign terrorism.

Unless you know something about McVeigh that I don't.

[Sebastian Doyle]

90. I suspect they aren't all that imporant to you and your Freeper buddies.

Because nobody was demanding that President Clinton eliminate every white separatist militia gun nut crazy white fucker from the face of the earth - like you guys demanded pResident Chimpy do to every last Muslim on the planet in the wake of 9-11-01.

[DailyGrind51]

31. He was in office 8 months when "9/11" happened, and received

specific warnings about Osama Bin Laden's Determination to Strike within the United States.

[smiley]

41. And spent all of August prior to 9/11 in Crawford

Plus, by the end of his term had racked up more vacation days than any other U.S. President.


MIA president

[DailyGrind51]

84. So much for the "Protestant work ethic"!

[Politicalboi]

32. Clinton had Oklahoma

Another do it yourself bombing. One Ryder truck does not leave 3 explosive devices in a Federal building. But I believe Bush/Cheney did 9/11. Mostly Cheney since Bush is too stupid to do it himself. They sold us out. The last 8 years was all about laundering money.

[mw]

53. OK was not a foreign terror attack. Neither was Olympics, Unabomber, etc

Oklahoma, Columbine, Unabomber, abortion clinic bombings...etc, etc.

If you include these and other indigenous crimes in the balance, then Bush can DEFINITELY not say "no attacks since 9-11". Nor can any other president.

[Imagevision]

33. And Clinton was in office 3 months when WTC first terrorist attack ocurred

[smiley]

34. I don't disagree with the OP.... but

there were two attacks on US soil during the Clinton years. The first WTC bombing and the Oklahoma City bombings. I'm surprised nobody here has realized this.

On edit: just saw post #28

[nichomachus]

39. So, make it foreign terrorists

But all of it depends on whether you count an attack as "terrorist" or "mass murder." There are something like 100 working definitions of "terrorism" and people can't really agree on which is which.

Part of the problem is that if you set the definition too wide, then many of the military adventures of the US count as terrorism. If you set it too narrow, then some of the attacks against us aren't terrorism.

For example, you could argue that while the WTC attack was terrorism, the attack on the Pentagon wasn't because it was a military target, not civilian.

But if you claim that an attack on civilians in an attempt to bring about governmental change is terrorism (the most common definition) then Bush's "shock and awe" in Iraq clearly was a terrorist act.

[smiley]

43. I do agree with you somewhat, but

couldn't any attack designed to cause terror be considered mass murder?

I would have to agree with you that many of our military's adventures count as terrorism.

But why should we limit the point the OP is making, to just attacks carried out by foreign citizens? To me - an attack is an attack. No matter what nationality you are.

I would have to agree with some of the other comments to the OP that mention the Olympic bombings and the Unabomber. I might even go as far to say the Columbine killers were terrorists. These were attacks carried out to terrorize American Citizens.

I'm not saying I blame Clinton at all for any of these attacks. I'm just trying to point out that the OP only states one attack on American soil during the Clinton years and I disagree.

[nichomachus]

47. That's exactly my point

Your confusion over what counts as terrorism and what counts as just murder is a murky area. We don't have a good working definition that everyone agrees on. When that happens, then "terrorism" just because, at best, a nonsense word and, at worst, a propaganda tool.

If I go blow up the local laundry because the ruined my suit is that terrorism or just murder? If I blow it up because the people who own it are Muslim, does that all of a sudden make it terrorism or is it still murder? If I blow it up to try to force the government to do something, does that make it terrorism? If I blow it up because it was simply the easiest place to blow up and I like to blow things up, is that terrorism or murder? The same number of people die in each case.

By your reckoning, there have been many many attacks on American soil during the Bush years -- and a couple during the Obama presidency. We've had a couple of mass shootings in the last few weeks.

So, if you start lumping these in with 9-11 and the first attack on the WTC, then the whole discussion becomes useless.

[smiley]

60. I don't think I have any confusion as to what constitutes terror

I think you probably can draw a line between what is murder and what is terrorism. But I think it is probably a real thin line.

So you are saying that you don't consider the Oklahoma City bombings terrorism? If you do feel that it was terrorism then you agree that the author of the OP should have included it in his mentioning of the attacks that occurred during Clinton's watch. I don't see why we need to pigeon hole terrorism to just foreign citizens.

[nichomachus]

63. Well, then define "terrorism"

I'd be interested to hear your definition.

[mw]

66. Define if how you want. My point still stands:

Bush's "no attacks since 9-11" claim is either FALSE (because there have been "terrorist crimes" in the US under Bush and all prez's), or it's IRRELEVANT (because MOST presidents have had one OR FEWER terrorist attacks on their watch).

[nichomachus]

68. not really

if you say one or fewer "terrorist attacks," then you need to define "terrorist attack"

[mw]

71. Define it how you want:

Narrowly call terrorism "only foreign attacks on US soil": Then Bush's "no attacks since 9-11" is IRRELEVANT because MOST presidents haven't had any attacks.

More broadly call terrorism "foreign attacks on US interests worldwide: Then Bush's "no attacks..." is WRONG because US embassies have been targeted since 9-11.

The broadest of all call terrorism "any attacks committed in the US even by Americans": Then Bush's "no attacks..." is WRONG because there have been abortion bombings, the Amish school shooting, et al on Bush's watch.

Got my point? NO MATTER HOW YOU SLICE THE DEFINITION, BUSH's STATEMENT IS NONSENSE.

[smiley]

74. propaganda

that's all it is. we agree on the fact that it irrelevant.

[smiley]

70. off the top of my head

a planned attack designed to strike fear in the victims.

[mw]

73. OK then there have been abortion clinic attacks on Bush's watch

So my point STILL stands: Bush's "no attacks since 9-11" statement is NONSENSE.

[smiley]

75. yep

you are right

[mw]

64. You are missing the point. IF Okla City is "terrorism".....

Then fine.

But that means the below listed items were terrorism too. And some happened SINCE 9-11...rendering Bush's "no attacks since 9-11" FALSE (rather than just irrelavant, my original point):

The Unabomber
Tylenol murders
Atlanta Olympic bombings
Abortion clinic attacks
Columbine
The Amish school attack

The list could go on and on.

My point remains: NO MATTER HOW you define "terrorism"--overseas or not, indigenous or not, crime or not--the Bushie statement of "no attack since 9-11" is FALSE at worst, IRRELEVANT at best.

Period dot.

[smiley]

76. ditto

n/t

[Imagevision]

99. The American people must have this 'truth' commission be allowed to spell the truth but

then they'd have to kill everybody

[mw]

54. OK include Okla. Then that means Bush cannot say "no attacks sine 911"

Either the standard is "foriegn attacks on US soil", which means Bush's "no attacks since 9-11" statement is MEANINGLESS (because MOST presidents can say the same thing, and they didnt torture to get it).

OR

The standard is "no attacks includes crimes within the US by Americans", in which case Bush is a lying sack of shit when he says "no attacks since 9-11" because there have been plenty (abortion bombings instantly come to mind).

EITHER WAY, Bushies have NO POINT when they keep repeating this crap. And Dems need to point it out.

[mw]

57. And the AMISH SCHOOL SHOOTING. On Bush's watch!!

You see, it can get ridiculous if we change the definition to "any crime in America".

But either way: Bush's claim is either FALSE or IRRELEVANT

[smiley]

62. I'm not talking about any crime

My post referred to the Oklahoma city bombings. You don't feel that was a terrorist event?

[mw]

77. Not any more/less "terrorist" than abortion clinic bombings

But I was sticking to--as most who talk of the subject do, including Bushies--foreign terrorist attacks.

But even if we include "indigenous terror", Bush's "no attacks since 9-11" statements are ridiculous.

[smiley]

81. Again - I agree

Abortion clinic bombings are IMO terrorism.

I guess I didn't realize that "most, including bushies" only consider the OP's points to mean only foreign terrorist attacks.

[mw]

83. Well that's the thing, we can't know for sure WHAT Bushies mean:

because no matter how you slice the definition, they're WRONG about it.

I was giving them the benefit of the doubt. If we define "terrorism" as only foreign attacks, then the Bushie "no attacks since 9-11" statement is TRUE, but it's just irrelevant.

Whereas if we assume Bushies are including non-foreign attacks, that means they are BALD FACED LIARS, which I of course wouldn't presume.

[smiley]

61. agreed

It's a stupid propaganda talking point - but look how many have fallen for it.

[nichomachus]

65. Should we include Ruby Ridge and the Branch Davidian massacre?

[mw]

67. It doesn't matter. Include ALL crimes if you want.

My point still stands: Bush's "no attacks since 9-11" is FALSE at worst, IRRELEVANT at best.

[nichomachus]

69. You keep vacillating between "attacks" and "terrorist attacks"

You need to define your terms -- or your claims are meaningless.

[mw]

78. I'm not "vacillating" at all. I'm saying DEFINE IT HOW YOU WANT

There is NO definition of "terrorist" that you can use which would negate my original point: Bush's "no terrorist attacks since 9-11" is ridiculous.

Oh wait. There is ONE definition: "We haven't had any terrorist attacks since 9-11 if you exclude the attacks conducted between 2002-2008"

[smiley]

79. MW's only claims are that the republican talking points

are meaningless.

My only point was that if we are talking about the OP and the OP states that only one terrorist attack occurred during Clinton's presidency, then what about Oklahoma? Why is that not considered a terrorist attack?

[mw]

80. Because. Oklahoma. Was. An. American. Criminal. Act.

That's "why" my original post didn't include Oklahoma. Or abortion clinic attacks. Or the Atlanta Olympics bombing. Or...or...or...

But go ahead and include them. My point about Bush's ridiculous statement still stands. (I think we're in violent agreement, smiley)

[smiley]

82. I think we are.

:-)

On edit: But I'm looking at your post #29 which says the OCB was a mere criminal act. I would have to disagree with that.

Really this discussion falls down to the fact that nowhere in your OP do you state foreign terrorist attack. By bad for not assuming this.

But we can agree that this as a talking point is ridiculous because GWB is not the first man to keep the US safe from a terrorist attack.

[sampsonblk]

35. "Why are Democrats quiet on this point?"

Democrats are silent on a lot of points. Very unfortunate.

[Gregorian]

36. Bush didn't even keep us safe DURING the attacks.

He sat. He waited. He knew. And people died.

People can't bullshit me.

[unblock]

38. he also kept us safe from elephant stampedes and martian invasions.

not to mention bubonic plague.

[Rhiannon12866]

40. You've sure got my vote...

They sure have resurrected this offensive point. If Bush* takes credit for preventing a terrorist attack since 9/11, then he has to also take responsibility for 9/11, which occurred on his watch... Why are the Democrats avoiding stating this fact?! :grr:

[Triana]

42. He DID NOT KEEP US SAFE *BEFORE* 9/11 and 9/11 happened on HIS watch...

...he WASN'T watching - either deliberately so or otherwise - but the FACT of the matter stands.

[BlooInBloo]

44. What I'm tired of hearing is everybody getting it wrong over and over and over...

The anthrax attack was after 9/11.

[file83]

86. EXACTLY - No one wants to speak about the Anthrax attacks.

Since our government never "officially" discovered who did it, they act as if it never happened. Which is convenient, because if they did admit that it was a terrorist attack, they would have to admit that we were attacked by terrorists 7 times after 9/11.

Which brings to me to the mind-control like nature of language. We always refer to 9/11 as if it was 1 attack, or the "Anthrax Attacks" as 1 attack.

9/11 involved 4 separate attacks. The Anthrax Attacks had 7 separate targets spread over 2 weeks.

So under Bush's watch, we were attacked 11 TIMES by terrorists.

But with the tricky use of language, they minimize these facts by referring to 1 terrorist attack on 9/11 and the "incident" involving some anthrax which never really sort of happened.

[mw]

89. Yea actually a good point. Anthrax attacks were 2 months after 9-11

Bushies always fail to mention that, too.

[Phx_Dem]

46. Well, he sure didn't keep us safe ON 9/11 did he?

I find it unbelievable that the Bush criminals brag that they only allowed one terrorist attack on their watch. It may have been the biggest attack in American history, but it was only the one so, you know . . . we should get all kinds of credit. You do, Dick. You get credit for ignoring the warnings and allowing terrorists to kill more than 3,000 Americans. You also get credit for being a war criminal so there's that.

Jesus.

[Sebastian Doyle]

91. He kept himself safe

First by using school children in Sarasota as human shields, then flying halfway across the country to hide in a hole in the ground, like the fucking coward he is, and always was.

[MurrayDelph]

48. I put this "he kept us safe After 9/11" crap

in the same category as saying

Edward Smith never sank another boat after the Titanic
Custer never lost another battle after Little Bighorn
Joseph Hazelwood never ran another oil tanker aground after the Exxon Valdez
Mel Gibson has not called a second arresting officer "Sugar Tits"


My point being, if you fuck up badly-enough the first time, you don't get credit for not fucking up again.

[PM Martin]

50. True.

[Jennicut]

49. Bush sure did not keep us safe from economic attacks, did he?

We are all more likely to suffer by losses of our jobs then we are to die in a terrorist attack. That is is the reality. No healthcare, less money to buy food, losing your house.

[old mark]

51. IMO, the greatest danger we face - terrorists importing a biological

or nuclear weapon - has remained constant while the Bush regime has travelers removing their shoes and giving up pocket knives and nail clippers in the name of "security".

Bush's response to any threat is the same as his response to Katrina - bullshit, photo ops, ineptitude, lack of interest.
Pretty much sums up his entire administration, actually.

mark

[Pachamama]

55. Fact: Bush didn't keep us safe - 9/11 happened on his watch and then he and Cheney implemented a

series of unconstitutional actions such as warrantless wiretapping of Americans, starting an illegal war on Iraq under false pretenses when it had no relation to 9/11, starting policies of rendition and torture and detaining people without charging them with a crime and calling them "enemy combatants". They didn't protect our borders and ports adequately.

I am so sick and tired of hearing right wing defenders of the Bush Administration state this false claim of keeping us safer. They made us less safe leading us to 9/11 happening and then they used an attack as an excuse to weaken our civil liberties and the protections of the US constitution all in the name of keeping us safe. And meanwhile, we became more hated around the world and the strength and recruitment and sympathy to the cause of terrorists enhanced. Its more like luck and a miracle that we hadn't been attacked since 9/11, not that they kept us safer.

[Imagevision]

95. Look what Clinton left Bush and what * left Obama, now calling it Obama's economy...

[mvd]

56. Good point!

Also, he allowed the greatest terror attack on American soil. Clinton put enough safeguards in place so that 9/11 should have never happened.

[Hellataz]

59. Bush didn't keep us safe, he used 9-11 to create an environment to escalate military action

They had no interest in catching Osama Bin Laudin, instead they saw this terrorist attack as an opportunity to go after personal grudges and enact military plans there and at home to further their war agendas.

Kept us safe...please, they were the ones were weren't safe from.

[Clio the Leo]

87. I dont call killing 4,000 Americans and a half million Iraqi's "safety."

Justice is in the eye of the beholder, aint it?

[Baikonour]

92. If it's true that Bush & Co. were warned about the 9/11 attacks beforehand...

Then what exactly did he prevent or save us from?

[mw]

93. FOr the first time, K.O. mentioned this

He pointed out today that it was 8 years between the first WTC attack and the 2nd WTC attack.

[Imagevision]

94. Bottomline: Clinton kept us safer longer then Bush - we did get hit twice in NY people...

[burning rain]

96. He sure as hell didn't prevent 9/11...

that despite the fact that it happened over half a year into his administration. All the same, rightwankers will bitch that he hadn't had enough time to get up to speed on national security and it was Bubba's fault. Uh-huh.

I have a hearty contempt for that non-point, too.

[Imagevision]

97. peventing 9-11 wasn't on Cheney/Bush's agenda... truth investigation will bring this out

[July]

100. Bush gets a mulligan on that, according to his fans.

Of course, when the first WTT attack occurred a month after Clinton took office, that was NOT Bush 1's fault -- again, according to Bushlovers' logic.

[quidam56]

98. HANNITY'S HOLIER THEN THOU PATRIOTIC AMERICA sure isn't MY AMERICA !

Kept U.S. safe from terrorist attacks ??? http://www.wisecountyissues.com Bush/Cheney are bombing, blasting and bulldozing Appalachia right into 3rd world America. Our water and environment are toxic, we can't stand anymore of the progress and prosperity thanks to THE NEW AND IMPROVED HYBRID CLEAN GREEN COAL INDUSTRY...