I don't blame the attacks on GW, and I certainly do not give him all of the credit for preventing another one since 9/11.

 

Nor do I, I do think he deserves some of the credit. Because as I said earlier, if there had been another attack he would have been the first blamed by many and therefore does deserve some credit for there being no more attacks.

I don't think anybody was sure of what to expect in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. With two successful attacks and a third thwarted attack, I think most Americans were holding their breath for a few days. As we later learned, the attacks were in the making over a five-year period. There could just as easily been ten more attacks because our government was asleep at the switch.

 

This is the one area that I do give President Bush a great deal of credit. Unfortunately, both parties seem determined not to impede the influx of illegal immigrants into this country and those illegals could just as easily be Islamo-fascists as Mexicans or Guatemalans.

 

I completely agree and this is the major issue that I have with the President.

 

The first rule of medicine is stop the bleeding, the first rule of security is shut the door. We are nowhere close to getting the door shut.

The World Trade Center bombing was done weeks into Bill Clinton's first term ... 9/11 came more than eight years later. Yet Clinton never gets any credit for capturing and convicting the perpetrators and the fact that there wasn't another attack for the rest of his two terms.

 

When we go eight-plus years without an attack after 9/11, I'll give Bush similar credit.

You blame the attacks on the 9/11 on America? Any of us in particular or all of us, because I am pretty sure that I have never done anything to upset any of the peace loving Muslim extremist that attacked our country on that day.

The radical Muslims' hostility toward us is decades in the making, going back even before we propped up the Shah of Iran.

The World Trade Center bombing was done weeks into Bill Clinton's first term ... 9/11 came more than eight years later. Yet Clinton never gets any credit for capturing and convicting the perpetrators and the fact that there wasn't another attack for the rest of his two terms.

 

When we go eight-plus years without an attack after 9/11, I'll give Bush similar credit.

1996 Khobar Towers Bombing (Saudi Arabia)

1998 US Embassy Bombings (Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania)

2000 USS Cole Bombing

1996 Khobar Towers Bombing (Saudi Arabia)

1998 US Embassy Bombings (Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania)

2000 USS Cole Bombing

None on American soil ... that is what we're talking about.

None on American soil ... that is what we're talking about.

 

What's the difference? Still American citizens or soldiers.

Read the original post ...

 

Do you really expect any administration to prevent all attacks on American interests anywhere in the world? That's a bit unrealistic.

1996 Khobar Towers Bombing (Saudi Arabia)

1998 US Embassy Bombings (Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania)

2000 USS Cole Bombing

None of them of the same scope of the Marine barracks' bombing in Beirut during Ronald Reagan's first term.

None of them of the same scope of the Marine barracks' bombing in Beirut during Ronald Reagan's first term.

Who said anything about Reagan? You asserted that Clinton kept Americans safe from terrorist attacks for more than 8 years and that Bush has not. I believe that you were mistaken.

None on American soil ... that is what we're talking about.

I have always been under the impression that embassies are considered property of the country occupying them.

Who said anything about Reagan? You asserted that Clinton kept Americans safe from terrorist attacks for more than 8 years and that Bush has not. I believe that you were mistaken.

You're putting words in my mouth.

I have always been under the impression that embassies are considered property of the country occupying them.

Like it or not, Iraq is essentially American soil since we're occupying it. Plenty of attacks there ...

You're putting words in my mouth.

The World Trade Center bombing was done weeks into Bill Clinton's first term ... 9/11 came more than eight years later. Yet Clinton never gets any credit for capturing and convicting the perpetrators and the fact that there wasn't another attack for the rest of his two terms.

 

When we go eight-plus years without an attack after 9/11, I'll give Bush similar credit.

I am sorry that I misinterpreted your post. I thought that you were saying that Clinton deserved credit for avoiding another terror attack for "the rest of his two terms."

 

BTW, testimony during the 9/11 hearings indicated that the planned "Millenium" attack on LAX was thwarted due to sheer luck. A lone customs agent, Diana Dean, asked al-Qaida operative Ahmed Ressam to pop his trunk. The trunk was full of a white powder that customs agents suspected were drugs. When tests turned out to be negative for drugs, the inspectors noticed timing devices in the trunk and realized that they had foiled a terrorist plot.

 

There is a lot of luck involved in preventing terror attacks and people should not get carried away with playing the blame game or doling out too much credit when bombs are not going off. That was as true of Bill Clinton's watch as it is of George W. Bush's administration.

I am sorry that I misinterpreted your post. I thought that you were saying that Clinton deserved credit for avoiding another terror attack for "the rest of his two terms."

My only contention is that if you're going to give Bush credit, Clinton has to get it, too.