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.

Know all about it ...

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

I don't think so. Fortunately, the first World Trade Center attack was largely unsuccessful. Clinton took no sweeping action to improve counter-terrorist operation as a result.

 

Because of the scale of the 9/11 attacks and the large number of casualties, the Bush administration and Congress made radical changes to our counter-terrorism operations. Granted, Bush would not have (and could not have) made those changes in the absence of the successful 9/11 attacks.

 

We were lucky that there were no successful 9/11 scale attacks during the Clinton years. Had 9/11 occurred a couple of years earlier, Clinton would have made the same kinds of improvements in the way that we combat terror threats as Bush did.

 

The truth is that without public outcry and the resulting political pressure, we would still be as ill prepared for domestic terror attacks as we were prior to 9/11.

I don't think so. Fortunately, the first World Trade Center attack was largely unsuccessful. Clinton took no sweeping action to improve counter-terrorist operation as a result.

But at least we did capture and convict those responsible for it.

But at least we did capture and convict those responsible for it.

Not all of them. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was not captured until 2003, after helping plan the 9/11 attacks.

I would vote for him again if he could guarantee that Notre Dame would struggle each and every one of the next 8 years.:thumb::dancingpa

 

And you wonder why Catholics have a difficult time with you. :lol:

I am very, very surprised that there has not been another successful terrorist attack on our soil.

 

If people give him credit for nothing other than the problems they listed and they fail to acknowledge anything that he has done to better this country, that makes those people ridiculously biased in my opinion. I can name several Democratic presidents whose policies and actions I strongly disagreed with but I will acknowledge did good things for this Country, including Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and LBJ.

 

It really troubles me that this country has become so polarized. People posting that they would never under any circumstances vote for a candidate of a certain party. People posting that a President should get credit for nothing positive. Does anyone else get troubled by this? Have we become so blinded by partisanship or upset with decisions a President makes on one issue, that they cannot see the good things accomplished by a person filling the most difficult position in the world? Am I the only one that feels this way? Its like if an elected official does not agree 100%, 100% of the time with a poster, that elected official is a bum, corrupt, stupid, inept, etc. Where has tolerance for disagreement in this country gone?

I am very, very surprised that there has not been another successful terrorist attack on our soil.

 

If people give him credit for nothing other than the problems they listed and they fail to acknowledge anything that he has done to better this country, that makes those people ridiculously biased in my opinion. I can name several Democratic presidents whose policies and actions I strongly disagreed with but I will acknowledge did good things for this Country, including Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and LBJ.

 

It really troubles me that this country has become so polarized. People posting that they would never under any circumstances vote for a candidate of a certain party. People posting that a President should get credit for nothing positive. Does anyone else get troubled by this? Have we become so blinded by partisanship or upset with decisions a President makes on one issue, that they cannot see the good things accomplished by a person filling the most difficult position in the world? Am I the only one that feels this way? Its like if an elected official does not agree 100%, 100% of the time with a poster, that elected official is a bum, corrupt, stupid, inept, etc. Where has tolerance for disagreement in this country gone?

 

Dude you are seriously starting to weird me out!

 

I can't tell you how many times I have been reading your posts over the last few weeks and gone "yep, that's almost exactly what I think." This is getting creepy. :creepy: :thumb:

Dude you are seriously starting to weird me out!

 

I can't tell you how many times I have been reading your posts over the last few weeks and gone "yep, that's almost exactly what I think." This is getting creepy. :creepy: :thumb:

 

I was thinking the same thing, actually.

I am very, very surprised that there has not been another successful terrorist attack on our soil.

 

If people give him credit for nothing other than the problems they listed and they fail to acknowledge anything that he has done to better this country, that makes those people ridiculously biased in my opinion. I can name several Democratic presidents whose policies and actions I strongly disagreed with but I will acknowledge did good things for this Country, including Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and LBJ.

 

It really troubles me that this country has become so polarized. People posting that they would never under any circumstances vote for a candidate of a certain party. People posting that a President should get credit for nothing positive. Does anyone else get troubled by this? Have we become so blinded by partisanship or upset with decisions a President makes on one issue, that they cannot see the good things accomplished by a person filling the most difficult position in the world? Am I the only one that feels this way? Its like if an elected official does not agree 100%, 100% of the time with a poster, that elected official is a bum, corrupt, stupid, inept, etc. Where has tolerance for disagreement in this country gone?

 

So you disagree with anyone that says they are a strict Republican or a strict Democrat?

There is no doubt in my mind that Bush has made us safer from more attacks in the US, often having to fight the other side to do so.

No...I didn't think W casued the attacks. Frankly, the situation has been brewing for decades....I don't blame the attacks on W, I blame the attacks on America, and a host of attitudes, actions and proclivities that have incited the hatred toward us.

 

Radical Muslims are not peace loving people, Islam is NOT a religion of peace. Devout practitioners of Islam HATE America and attacked us because to them were are the infidel, Satan and everything they are against. George Bush did nothing, has done nothing, and is not doing anything to exacerbate this mindset . . . but I am sure you will be the first to blame him if another attack takes place. This hatred of our country will continue no matter who is the Commander in Chief. And by the way, another attack would've been imminent if he had not put in place what he did. We have thwarted many attempts since 9/11 and thank God GW was at the helm.

Just for the record the 911 attacks were perpetrated by LEGAL immigrants/visitors to this country. Maybe we should halt all LEGAL immigration and increase ILLEGAL immigration?

Radical Muslims are not peace loving people, Islam is NOT a religion of peace. Devout practitioners of Islam HATE America and attacked us because to them were are the infidel, Satan and everything they are against. George Bush did nothing, has done nothing, and is not doing anything to exacerbate this mindset . . . but I am sure you will be the first to blame him if another attack takes place. This hatred of our country will continue no matter who is the Commander in Chief. And by the way, another attack would've been imminent if he had not put in place what he did. We have thwarted many attempts since 9/11 and thank God GW was at the helm.

 

You do realize that, like Christianity, Islam is a religion with many different branches and interpretations? You just clumped together all Muslims with the above statements. There are many devout practitioners of Islam that are not hate America or supporters of jihad. They just don't garnish the press the others do.

 

I believe the problem is with extreme fundamentalist Islam and not all of it.

You do realize that, like Christianity, Islam is a religion with many different branches and interpretations? You just clumped together all Muslims with the above statements. There are many devout practitioners of Islam that are not hate America or supporters of jihad. They just don't garnish the press the others do.

 

I believe the problem is with extreme fundamentalist Islam and not all of it.

If you know the history of Muhammad, then you know that he personally led his own armies and was responsible for the deaths of many in Medina, Mecca and anywhere people didn't think he was Allah's prophet. The antipathy between Jews and Muslims started with him. Islam does not have peaceful beginnings and continues down the path set by its founder. Death to the infidel.

I'm not sure I can vote for any of the options...I thought 911 was a once in a lifetime event. I also thought we would be attacked again at some point. Now, let me explain what I mean...

 

I thought future attacks would have been much smaller scale...similar to what Israel faces with car bombs and suicide bombers in isolated events. I thought 911 was "once in a lifetime" because it was such a large scale attack. The planning and execution would be hard to duplicate after you get America's attention. However, if there are already terrorists in the country, I guessed we could still see small, isolated terror attacks.

 

Make sense?