America is losing its fear of terrorist attacks
CNN says America feels safer from terrorist attacks than we have since 2001.
According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Wednesday, 35 percent of Americans believe a terrorist attack somewhere in the United States is likely over the next several weeks.
The figure is the lowest in a CNN poll since the September 11, 2001, al Qaeda attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people.
Now the catch there is that “next several weeks” figure, which sounds a bit vague to me. Do I think we’ll be hit in the next eight to ten weeks? Probably not. In the next 52-156 weeks? I wouldn’t bet a lot of money we won’t. Especially if Hopey McChangerson gets in office.
But timelines aside, I think there’s something to this. Al Qaeda’s getting creamed. They’ve been reviled and repudiated in Iraq, although they’re gaining strength in Europe and Pakistan and because of that second one things are getting kind of hot in Afghanistan.
And meanwhile, while we haven’t done nearly enough and there are a lot of holes all around the country (HINT HINT SOUTHERN BORDER NEEDS FENCE), we’ve wised up a little bit and made ourselves harder to hit. It’s an ongoing process of hardening and rethinking, but together with aggressive disruption of the bigger cells it’s kept most terrorism in America small and isolated.
The magnitude of what these isolated cells and individuals could accomplish might change, of course, if we don’t get a handle on the international nuclear bazaar. And it could change if we do something Iran doesn’t like, and they decide to send us a message through their Hezbollah cheerleaders (which is a problem that we ought to be scared of–if this worldwide threat got the coverage it deserved).
But are we safer than we were on 9/10? Yeah, somewhat, I think we are. And to the extent we are, it’s because we’re keeping the bad guys abroad looking over their shoulders for the Predators instead of giving them the leisure to sit around the map and practice their bomb-building skills. Which, let’s face it, need practice.
So I think what we’ve done–taking the fight to the enemy– is working in principle and helped to keep us safe.*
And that’s why I’m surprised at the political spin being put on this.
National security may be less of an issue in the upcoming election, says CNN, which hurts McCain.
That’s a pretty jarring cognitive dissonance there. People feel safer than ever from terrorism because of the military pressure we’ve put on terrorists and their sponsors and the resolve we’ve (imperfectly, yes) demonstrated against them.
Hey, that policy has worked so surprisingly well that we need to try something else right now! Is that how people really see this issue? CNN predicts Americans will see it that way. I don’t, but maybe most people will.
If so, do they think Al-Qaeda just mellowed out on their own? I suppose given the weird, biased media coverage inflicted upon us, it’s possible to gather that impression. There are no heroes in the news; there is no victory. Our wartime successes are hidden and covered up, and our failures and misjudgments blare from every headline and newscast 24-7.
But whatever the reason, people think we’re safer. I basically agree. The question I hope every patriot asks himself is, WHY?
If a policy works, shouldn’t we support those candidates, and the party, that will continue to advance that policy?
*Oh, I have plenty of criticisms of the Bush administration–but most of them stem from its departure, especially in the second term, of this principle of taking the fight to the enemy.
_________________
{Post by See-Dubya}
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Terrorist attacks, War
Patterico
» The Newest Senators
JustOneMinute
» Susan Rice To The United NationsPower Line
» "Our Friends In Bombay"Belmont Club
» Good enoughNewsBusters.org
» Klein Bashes 'Inanity' of Asking Obama About Process and Old Hillary-Bashing QuotesGateway Pundit
» Change... Obama Continues Boycott of FOX NewsBelmont Club
» Crusader RabbitNewsBusters.org
» MSNBC Anchor Frets: Why Hasn’t Obama’s Election Ended Terrorism?Right Wing Nut House
» THE INCREDIBLY STUPID THOUGHTS OF DEEPAK CHOPRANewsBusters.org
» Name That Party: Democratic Birmingham Mayor Arrested
I had further proof, but Sandy Burgler seems to have destroyed it.
He’s only saying that because the Republican right-wing attack machine got inside his head.
Rusty, smokin’ that stuff is illegal.
Well if Hopey gets elected, I’ll be buying lots of ammo!
#82 mistressjustice said:
So if Al Qaeda chose January 19th instead of September 11th 2001, GW would be off the hook in your estimation, because it wasn’t “on his watch?” (Eyes roll) I’ll have to remember that the next time a terror organization spends over four years planning an epic attack like 9/11, but actually pulls the trigger less than eight months into the new guy’s administration…it is exclusively the new guy’s fault. Ok.
If you are speaking as a Bill Clinton admirer, than you have to take both, because Clinton did both (Monica and Serbia - both had no direct ties to 9/11.) How silly do you want to get here?
I concede that your sentiment is pithy, but it certainly doesn’t sound reassuring as a national security policy!
Wow. I promise you don’t want to open up this front. Just look up “President Carter” and “US Embassies in Tehran and Islamabad” as to why. Trust me, we are not there yet.
Don’t tell that to Rusty!
Rusty said:
Rusty,
It’s more telling to count the months. From President Bush’s inauguration to Sept 11, 2001 was 8 and a half months. In the September 10th world, that wasn’t long at all. Residual incompetence of the Clintonistas combined with ‘The Goreilick Wall’ place a HUGE level of responsibility for September 11, 2001 squarely at Bubba’s feet.
Nice try Hippie. You can call Bush a victim all you want, and I’ll concede that Clinton should have killed Osama years ago. The fact of the matter is 9/11 happen under the Bush administration, and unlike Roosevelt, he decided to invade a country that wasn’t at war with anyone, and wasn’t behind the attacks on our country.
I think Bush wanted to invade Iraq from the moment he became president, probably while he was running. I can’t prove it, but based on anecdotal evidence from people like Clarke, I have my Opinions. If you wanna go around comparing Bush to Roosevelt as a President, go ahead, it’s your credibility not mine.
Under Bush:
1.September 11, 2001. He was president. Period.
2.We invaded Iraq based on faulty intelligence.(never said he lied).
3.Our reputation in the world declines.
4. Our border remains unsecured, and his “amnesty” policy rallied American of all races, creeds and beliefs against him.
5. Gas prices have more than doubled and hopefully won’t triple.
6. Heath Ledger died.
You can call it BDS and call me a blockhead all you want, but this man’s presidency was an epic failure.
If you think our country is better off now than it was in December 2000, you either dumb or a liar. We’re not supposed to be attacked by terrorists, and lose 3000 people. We have the best military strength and quaility intelligence in the world. 9/11 just woke Bush up, to do part of the job he’s supposed to master in the first place. No cookies from me Hippie. Maybe I’ll spare one if he kills Osama before kidney failure does.
Wow! “Hopey McChangerson” has over 1000 hits on Google.
Let’s leave fantasy land and deal with reality. Al-Qaeda did SUCCESSFULLY attack while Bush 43 was in office. Those are the facts. We can only speculate why it was done at this time, and I’m not one for unfounded conspiracy theories, but I suggest we deal with the cards as they have been dealt. The Bush administration was prepped as to what could be coming, and we still got hit.
I’m not sure if you are ignoring my lines where I have stated that the Clinton administration has some responsibily for their inactions, and that Osama should have been killed years ago.
Worked for OJ.
The Left would have blamed Bush if Al Qaida had attacked on January 22nd, 2001.*
“Hey, it happened on his watch.”
*January 21st was a Sunday.
Again, go back and Read Binny’s own words. He attacked because of Clinton. Sure, you’re right that Bush was in office when the stunt was pulled off, but the plans for 9-11 were prior to Bush taking office.
Right, and these plans were relayed to the Bush admisistration. Remember Condi’s classic testimony before Congress. Who knows whether something like the magnitude of 9/11 would have occurred under Clinton? We know it didn’t. That’s what we know. Don’t blame me, I voted for Gore.
Not that I’m blaming you cool-ade drinking Bush apologist for 9/11 so settle down.
apologists
Yes Mistressjustice, Bush made a big mistake keeping George Tenent over from Clinton’s team.
You just gotta love the continual BDS from the left. They never let the facts get in their way!!
I believe in accuracy, unlike Soapbox and his military death analyis, so I should clarify that intelligence was provided to the Bush administation that Al-Queda was planning an attack in the U.S. I’m obviously not saying that the specific details of 9/11 were available.
Folks can speculate all they want about what mighta or coulda happen if it was Clinton, or Gore, or Bill Brasky. 9/11 is part of Bush’s legacy, and a partial result of his failures. He’s a garbabe president, and as much as I oppose McCain, I’m certain he’ll be an improvement over W. if he
stealswins the election.edit- garbage.
I’m about to drive home in thunderstorm now, so later on Bush fans.
I bet if we check the Mosques in New York, and Deerborn, MI., we will find plans and weapons for the Jehad in American streets.
I understand southern CA. has a nice Mosque that takes in OTM illegal aliens, and moves them across the country. CAIR does not like the FBI watching it.
Remind me: after the first WTC attack — how successful was the Clinton administration at preventing Al Qaida attacks against American interests?
The only reason we were attacked on 9/11 was because Clinton let the terrorists know that if we were attacked we wouldn’t do anything in response.
And no, firing a million dollar cruise missile into an empty hundred dollar tent out in the middle of nowhere dorsn’t count as a response.
Yes.
So why aren’t we?
Minority hiring practices in the US government have assured us of an islamist in every office. What with the muslim minority grievance committees working overtime it was a match made in Heaven, err hell. Whatever they can’t find out on their own we brief them on just to be on the safe side. It’s like during the days of Al Capone the guvment having a mob outreach program complete with the incorporation of mobsters in key positions through equal opportunity employment all around the country, mobsters being an oppressed minority and all. Our guvment in an attempt to look all inclusive has established an islamist intelligence network that dwarfs anything we have in the Islamic world. The Soviets only wish we would have done the same for them. Just keep repeating, thirty year head start over and over, and then try to imagine what can be accomplished in thirty years.
Was calling America–not just the President–the victim.
That’s special.
The only person to blame for the “faulty intelligence” is Hussein–Saddam, that is. He wanted his neighbors to believe he had an active WMD program years before he could get it up and running. Too bad for him.
Walk around the streets of any big city with a toy gun, threatening to do harm and you might get your ass shot by the cops. I won’t cry for ya.
Take Off the tin foil and good luck.
I just took a drink of my first beer and where does it end up? Keyboard and screen.
Hey Soap,
I firmly believe that all of 9/11 was on Clintons death total as well. Week arse Clintons negligence was the biggest factor in the intel failure that didn’t stop the 9/11 attacks.
Years of the terrorists planning for this, Clinton was in office ignoring any terror threat, the 1993 attack wasn’t enough of a hint, plus Bin Hidin was handed to Clinton (ON A PLATTER) but Clenis declined to just ‘pick up’ this terrorist, Bush was brand new in office in reality…
this is a Clinton mistake far more than anyone else.
Mistress, the pre-attack analysis actually explicitly mentioned terrorists trying to use planes as weapons. Surely that would have led to an increase in airport security, right?
I remember too. We sold them to him. While we were illegally selling arms to their enemy in war, Iran.
Giving weapons to two evil doing countries so they can kill each others’ civilians. We should be so proud.
whoops, mis-edit, I left out;
1993 to 2001 = 8 years.
2001 to today = 7 years.
If the terrorists are getting more ‘practiced’…they are over due.
If BHO is elected, they will attack immediately after Jan 20th…during the transition.
Just MHO.
I see Rusty would rather have had Iran and Iraq attacking us than attacking each other. Bravo Rusty.
Now you are talking my language, Ollie North, my hero, well along with John Wayne and others at least. Yes trading arms to Iran for hostages and then using the profit, we are capitalists and Ollies a good one as this operation shows, to finance anti communists in Latino America, to quote Monty Python…brilliant!
Don’t know where saddam shopped take your pick.
JHSII, yeah, because Iran and Iraq were such a threat to Americans in the 80s. There’s no excuse for killing so many innocent civilians for no real benefit (other than being pissed at Iran). We contributed to the deaths of 700,000. This should be a national shame.
I think that’s a smart move. No American soldiers die in the process.
Too bad that when you got mugged, Rusty, you didn’t get mugged by reality.
Nice revisionist history Rusty. Don’t let any of the facts get in your way!
We never gave weapons to anyone so they could kill civilians.
We sold intelligence to Iraq so they could counter Iran’s superior troop numbers and anti-tank weapons to Iran so they could counter Iraq’s armor superiority. The result was a stalemate that kept them from attacking everyone else.
A win-win for everyone - except the bad guys.
Who exactly where Iran and Iraq going to attack?
We provided Iraq with chemical weapons that were used on Iraqi and Iranian citizenry. And we provided our enemy with weapons illegally to fund terrorists.
Win-win for everyone but the bad guys? Hundreds of thousands civilians died. Seems lose-lose for the fallen and their families.
Never gave weapons to anyone to kill citizenry. Please. Don’t be so naive.
There is no excuse for contributing to the deaths of the innocent with no tangible benefit.
But, hey, both countries hate us now. So, good work Reagan!
How the hell are we responsible for the Iran/Iraq war? I do remember Saddam ordering his troops to invade Iran. I don’t remember a US Commander ordering the Iranians to use human wave attacks sending many eager young potential Jihadist to their just reward. I do remember aerial refueling missions supporting the C-5s that brought the weapons we provided to Iraq. The old enemy of my enemy is my friend foreign policy that worked well in thinning the herd of potential Jihadist during the 1980s.
Except for Clinton’s “Chinese Walls”. Perhaps we can lay part of the blame for 9/11 on Jamie Gorelick.
Civilians, that’s a good one. Islam holds no definition for civilian for them there is no such thing there are only martyrs and that’s a good thing to be in their eyes. Hey, don’t get mad at me I didn’t make their rules but I did stay in a holiday inn last night. Rusty attributes to them something they reject but he is right, because he said so, ya know. Its sort of like saying that killing Bundy or Dahmer was murder as they were really victims of their own sexual perversion. I know what you care about Rusty but these civilians you speak of would push a wall on you for that type of behavior faster than you could say, oh crap. Post as much as you can Rusty because in the brave new world you advocate, well, you aren’t in it, fool.
Rusty conveniently forgets the fact that both countries hated us before Reagan. I guess Rusty missed the 1979 Iranian takeover of the US Embassy.
Reagan wasn’t President then.
Why is it that Rusty always takes the side of America’s enemies in any and every discussion?
Subjective Truth
The Truth is a Lie if is is not helpful.
A Lie is the Truth if it is.
There are a couple of ’subjective truth’ tellers on this thread.
Finish your thought Rusty: Especially because many of the 700,000 were gay and unable to obtain free contraceptives or marry under Sharia law. W-a-a-a-a-a-h!
mistress justice:
There was a cease fire from the Gulf War. Saddam was in violation of that cease fire. All he had to do was comply with the terms, account for his materials, allow inspectors, etc., but he chose not to.
Oh yes, you are correct. Good point.
I have been honest enough to concede some of the failings of the Clinton administration. These Bush-heads won’t concede anything. Ingorance is bliss. If 9/11 was under Gore, and everything else remained equal, he’d be tagged with the failure in responsibiity by the un-hinged right. This is just a bunch of partisan crap, and a lack of honesty.
Like I said before, I deal in reality, and Gore wasn’t in command. Bush is a failure, and I don’t feel the need to thank him for doing his damn job, AFTER we got over 3000 people killed by terrorists. It’s not all his fault, but it’s patently false to say he and his administration don’t deserve a good share of the blame. 9/11, Iraq war, economy-gas, immigration reform(not).
Buchanan,Grant, Harding and Bush=
MountSuckMore.
History will be the judge.
Agreed.
I doubt anyone thinks you can eliminate terrorism, but whatever the Bush administration is doing seems to be working, and the only threats to my fundamental rights seem to come from the left (see infringement of Second Amendment on a number of fronts, and the hidden censorship of the “Fairness” Doctrine, which is an attack on the First Amendment, to name a few)
Perhaps, but closing loopholes that they can take advantage of, and giving the authorities every possible legal advantage should take priority.
As for “dismantling the very structure of this nation,” that is the goal of the terrorist. It is hopefully the goal of the authorities to preserve it. Despite all the crying, I again reiterate that the greatest threat to my rights, in my opinion, have been Democrats.
Granted, but the last line might be more accurately rephrased as “when the threat has been averted for seven years.”
I think the liberal press has actually demonized him in this way. Frankly, I see nothing in Obama’s record to suggest that he is some sort of economic whiz kid. They both are going to hire experts to handle these things.
If you are going to go on experience, then you aren’t going to go with Obama.
I think that the Clinton administration would have been better served letting that intelligence be shared between the FBI, CIA and other domestic agencies rather than the legal impediment of the “Gorelick Wall,” which prevented same.
As much as Bush has disappointed me in several ways, he is not nearly as abysmal as Carter. I lived through through both and can say that with certainty. And if you really want to be accurate, and go with the “under their watch” catch phrase, the huge increases in the price of fuel occurred after 2006, when the Democrats took control of Congress (with promises of lowering gas prices!).
I guess that will be a part of the Democrat’s legacy, right?
Well, if GHW Bush and Clinton hadn’t spent the peace dividend they inherited from Reagan, and Clinton hadn’t “allowed” certain warhead technology to get to the Chinese, I might agree.
And just for the record, here are some famous quotes of politicians spreading Iraq/Hussein “misinformation:”
Oh yeah. Bush lied.
Is it misinformation (or lying) if you believe it to be the truth (that applies to both parties)?
The simple fact is that regardless of who is President, it will be a tremendously cowardly and weak Congress that will not allow either man to do or not do anything in light of an attack. My sense is that with the economy showing such weakness right now, an attack (practically of any sort) would be quite effective because it would send the weakened economy into a downward spiral… We won’t have to wait for Obama to kill it.
Dark,
Figures were from 2006. I noted that.
mistress,
Those are DOD numbers so take it up with them. I know you, like Rusty, want to ignore the 7,500 military persons who died under Clinton’s watch while we were not at war. Brush them off if you will but they still died.
Once again, for people who cannot understand (or refuse), these numbers are total deaths through 2006.
I still would like for you trolls to explain how Clintons numbers are so high compared to Bush’s numbers while he is fighting a war on many fronts. THAT, is distrubing to me.
Rusty and Mistressjustice:
Very lazy, dissapointing, and in my opinion, dangerous contributions from the both of you on this subject today.
I don’t know how old you two are, but it appears to me that you have little concept of world matters during the Reagan and Carter Administrations, just 20 and 30 years ago respectively.
I’m used to the blanket statements from your side (Bush lied, people died…we’re less safe today than we were on 9/10, America isn’t perfect, blah, blah, blah.) But what gets me is the outright mis-portrayal of world events during previous US Administrations. It makes me wonder what you will be telling your children and grandchildren about the US years from now.
Mistress, I already showed you links as to what the world thought of America/Jimmy Carter circa 1979. It was a horror show. US Embassies were actually burning to the ground and US Marines were being mobilized to protect the lives of US citizens abroad. Are you also aware that the President of France was prepared to ask President Johnson to remove every last vestige of US Military from his country in 1968, because French opinion of US matters was nearing “revolt in the street” levels?
If you are going to throw around ill opinions that this period of American history, or that this current administration is the lowest in world favor, my God, at least begin by knowing what the heck you are talking about! I happen not to agree with most of what you philosophize here, but I would advise you to at least get your facts straight, or as you like to say, “deal in reality.” I daresay, I can’t imagine that you are winning many new friends and influencing people here by taking your current approach.
Rusty. You really lost me with your “Iran/Iraq” analysis circa 1981. I was just a young man then, but I was aware enough to realize that Iran was sticking a knife in our eye, and threatening to do a lot worse every day. For you to absolutely reject the then policy of containing Iranian aggression (not only in their region) by helping the Iraqis bog them down in a knock down, drag out fight…is practically as obtuse as saying that dropping the bombs on Japan in 1945 was a blight on America’s world standing. The same with your Iran/Contra analysis. There was a lot more going on in mid-1980s world events than big-bad ol’ Reagan and Olie North thumbing their nose at the preposterous Boland Amendment passed by a vindictive Congress. There were a lot of lives at stake, and a childish Congress that was more interested in exhibiting their own power by throwing illogical roadblocks in front of a sitting US President who was determined to take Soviet escalation into the Western Hemisphere very seriously.
And for you to classify the Nicaraguan Contras (mostly farmers and landowners who were demanding a vote to remove a Soviet-funded, Marxist, dictatorial thug like Ortega) as terrorists (as I believe you did)…is simply outrageous and ill-informed.
Brian NY:
Well said. You have illuminated how callow, chauvinistic and naive both Rusty and MistressJustice are when it comes to world politics and history.
I remember the Carter years and it was bleak. The price of oil made many homes cold in the winter, and I don’t mean 60 degrees either. The embarassment over Carter’s inept attempt to rescue the American hostages in Tehran embarassed even me- a teenage liberal during those years - and began my subsequent journey towards conservatism.
Unfortunately I think far too many people fail to perceive just how a successful terrorist nuke attack would totally change this country. Our throw-up-barricades everywhere response to 9/11 will be a picnic if terrorists can intimidate this country via “Which City’s Next” Russian Roulette with a second nuking threat that’d make us jump unthinkable hoops like withdrawing from everywhere around the world and totally abandoning Israel and contributing billions in blood money to “poor nations”. Yes, I can see most every U.S. mayor caving in and demanding Washington to jump hoops under such a threat.
We MUST build up our intelligence and counter-terrorist agencies to be the technological and tactic equivalent of our military to stave off this nightmare.
James Greenidge
Queens NY
On my Soap, yes I see you noted the numbers through 2006, is there a reason why you did not include 2007? Or the numbers through the first half of 2008?
DarkKnight,
The pages were not loading and I had a printout through 2006. Still, the numbers are telling of a sever problem with the Clinton admin. The deaths by “self inflicted” were real scarry - 20% (thru 2000). We hear a lot about the “self inflicted” deaths in the Bush admin. I am just trying to make a point that we are at war in three countries and have lost 11,500 souls (I guess that is what you came up with) while Clinton kept us safe and secure and out of war and we lost 7,500 under him.
Disturbing.
Soap, the numbers are almost the exact same between Clinton and Bush if you exclude war casualties. Why? Because death happens.
From FactCheck.org
Using non-combat deaths in this thread is disingenuous anyways since we’re discussing specifically combat deaths and deaths caused by terrorism.
President Clinton was able to stop a genocide with international cooperation, promote democracy, and prevent a major terrorist attack over eight years with under 100 military casualties. Some of that is luck. But a lot of that was preparedness and a lot of that was not stuffing your administration with PNAC members determined to use any excuse to invade Iran.
Soap, until you take an adult education course in basic statistics, please stop using numbers. You are incredibly uninformed and your use of statistics to prove your point proves what Mark Twain said about statistics being a type of lie in the wrong hands.
Brian, your analysis of Iran/Iraq is way off the mark. First, we gave chemical weapons to an evil regime. There’s no way around that. We contributed to some horrible human rights abuses.
Why? To stop Iran who was “sticking it in our eye.” Well, let them stick. Our hostages were long out and they weren’t an immediate danger to anyone. Helping Iraqis kill Iranian civilians accomplishes what? I am perilously close to invoking Goodwin’s Law, but that’s like bombing the concentration camps to contain Nazi Germany. By attacking the Iranian people, many of whom were victims of a revolution they had no part in, we strengthened the Iranian government and cemented the anti-American hatred so prevalent there.
And how psyched was Iraq when it turned out we were illegally providing Iran with weapons too!?
Now we are the devil to that entire region. Which is a shame since our human rights record blows Iran and Iraq out the water. But when we’ve worked hard to kill so many with no tangible benefit, it’s a designation that I totally understand.
If your family was hit with American provided chemical weapons, you’d want to see us destroyed too. If your brothers all died on the front lines because we were artificially extending the length of the war, you’d be more likely to associate with terrorists than Westerners.
Iraq, with our support, killed approximately 215,000 Iranian civilians. 215,000 innocents bombed in their homes and on the streets in a war that Iraq declared for no reason with our support.
That, my friends, is terrorism. That’s 72 9-11s.
And still some wonder why other countries hate us!
The most hilarious thing about Rusty’s post is his comment to Soap where Rusty stated:
Then Rusty continues to do exactly what he was accusing Soap of. It doesn’t get any better than that.
Rusty, if you want to be taken seriously, then you have got to stop with the revisionist history. We never gave chemical weapons to an evil regiime. We never helped either Iran or Iraq kill civilians.
Clinton gave us the attacks on 9-11 because the terrorists learned from him that we wouldn’t give a real response to a major terrorist attack. We’re still cleaning up the international political mess from the Clinton regime - and we’ll probably be cleaning it up for the rest of my life!
Revisionist history!?
And JHSII, if you can’t see the difference between the way Soap uses his numbers (to promote falsehood) and the way I am presenting his numbers (facts!), then there’s no way I can convince you of anything.
Soap’s claims that Bush has handled the military better than Clinton because of non-combat death rates is ridiculous when his own numbers don’t even back him up.
Rusty, you can’t convince me of anything because all you’ve posted so far are old long-discredited liberal myths. The only one here promoting falsehoods is you.
If you did bother to post facts (you haven’t yet) then you could easily convince me of your arguements.
And yes, Rusty, that is revisionist history. Have you ever heard of Walter Duranty?
I wrote a paper on Duranty in college. What’s your point? He was a terrible journalist and has long been discredited.
JHSII, it’s fact that we provided Iraq with anthrax and other chemical weapons. It’s fact that we helped both sides in a long punishing war that killed 750,000 people, many of whom were civilians.
It’s fact that there were many more civilian and military deaths under Bush’s watch then there were under Clinton’s. It’s also fact that the Bush administration featured members of an organization dedicated to invading Iraq.
And although it’s not fact, there are reports of the Bush administration focusing on Iraq at the expense of focusing on international terrorism.
There is no objective way where one claim that Bush has been a better president than Clinton. Even if the Clinton prosperity was a mirage caused by the dot com bubble, remember the good old days when we had a federal surplus? When we won wars without losing American soldiers and keeping civilian casualties to a minimum? When we had international support? When there were no major international terrorist attacks?
You just walked all over my point Rusty. It’s only a fact that we provided Iraq with weaponized anthrax and other chemical weapons if you believe the Pulitzer Prize winner about the old Soviet Union.
You do have something partly right - we helped both sides continue a long punishing war. We did that so that they would be occupied with each other and less with us.
There are many and plentiful objective ways ways to claim - and prove - that Bush has been a better President than Clinton. The problem here is that your BDS keeps you from seeing anything that doesn’t fit your BDS template.
Take off the blinders.
Put down the Kool-Aid.
So you’re accusing the Baltimore Sun of lying based on what exactly? Anything published that you don’t agree with is automatically a Duranty like lie? Please. I’m the one drinking Kool-Aid?
We helped both sides continue a long war so they wouldn’t bother with us? What the Hell are you talking about? Iraq had never, ever bothered with us. Iran was an enemy so supporting Iraq made sense. Supporting both makes Reagan a war criminal.
Sorry, but you and I have a much better chance of dying from a bee sting or getting hit by lightning than from a terrorist attack. Stop being afraid. There are much greater threats to your life than some d-bag in a cave with a video camera.
Rusty, yes, the Baltimore Sun used the same old discredited nonsense that came out of the Soviet Cold War propaganda machine.
I see you missed the fact that Iraq’s army was equipped with Soviet tanks and gear. Yep, you’re right, that made them an American ally, huh?
Supporting both to bleed them dry so they wouldn’t bother the rest of the world made Reagan an American hero - only you would believe that an American hero was a war criminal.
Brian: I first gotta say that you gave me a chuckle. I’m not trying to make friends or sway opinions here. I’m just a chick with a keyboard, an opinion, and an occasional thirst for debate. That’s all.
Your post fails to address any substantive matters that I posted on. You are more clear when you use block quotes, because that last effort was rambling, and slightly strawmanish.
France’s opinion of the Johnson Administration is beyond irrelevant to our current state of things, and the problems facing this country, in large part, because of W. The only line typed by me in anyway relevant to your post is that our reputation around the world has declined. It’s been 30 years since your Carter examples and 40 years since LBJ, believe or not, things improved since then for the USA until W. took office. I made a joke about looking at the Carter legacy again, since you conservatives want to give praise to a president for keeping us safe from being attacked by terrorists at home. You won’t see any posts by me on this site giving praise to the Carter years.
You mentioned the terrorist attacks overbroad during the Carter years, and yes they were tragic, but do you want to tell me that they are anywhere near what 9/11 meant as an event on our soil, after YOUR president was in office for 8 months? Nothing during the Carter years compares to 9/11, which will rank right up there, and AHEAD of the assassinations of King and the Kennedys, and perhaps Pearl Harbor as our country’s lowest moments and worst days. Get a little perspective, if you want to devote an entire post to this line:
I have conceded Clinton’s inaction leading up to 9/11, and you have conceded nothing in regards to Bush’s failings before and after the event. Would you vote for this guy again? Also, let me ask you a question that Soapbox failed to answer. A percentage of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Are you one of these people? If you are, there really isn’t much to discuss in any type of a rational manner.
I apologize for any grammar or style problems with this post. I’m about to cut out of work early for vacation. Peace out to all, and be safe.
!?!?!?
Ok, you are no longer on Planet Earth.
I didn’t miss that. The USSR and US were both supporting Iraq. So what?
I’m still on Earth, Rusty - I don’t know where you are. Keep drinking the Kool-Aid and don’t let the facts get in your way.
Reality check:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd372.htm
mistress said:
Apologies. In hindsight, I may be guilty of lumping in some of Rusty’s points with yours.
Point taken.
Now them’s fighting words.
My point was, as bleak as you view the past eight years of this current administration, recent memory (and a quick google search) can still prove that 1968 and 1979 (in particular) were a lot worse for American “global prestige” then today. Contrary to popular belief, US Marines are not flying around the world to prevent US Embassies from burning down (like 1979) and the current (and past) President of France, or any global leader for that matter, isn’t asking for the US Military to leave his/her country immediately (like 1968.)
Again, maybe I lumped your line with others that Rusty was bleating.
Well, regarding US “global prestige,” I do remember the “Arab Street” still burning “Old Glory” and hopping around with some pretty derogatory signs, in English, about what a “war criminal” and a “pervert” Bill Clinton was after he bombed Sudan and Baghdad. Oh, and that mean spirited, declaration of war that OBL addressed to Clinton in late 1997. I guess I have a beef with Rusty’s and your thesis that 9/11 happened in a vacuum (eg. that the majority of our national security problems happened after GW was sworn in on 1/20/01, and that terrorism should be expected to be nipped in the bud when a previous administration throws literally hundreds of thousands of documents on your desk and one of them innocuously states that terrorists “might” use airplanes as devices in a plot because of what was attempted in the Bojinka Plot of January 1995, nearly six years earlier.
My bad, I mistook it as one of your comparison points.
I don’t necessarily want to give our President “praise,” as much as acknowledgment for doing something about a very serious problem of terrorists who want us all destroyed, and the Nation States who support them. (You may disagree with the Iraqi front in this current war, but you can’t convince me that a Nation in violation of 19 UN resolutions regarding a 1991 cease-fire and WMD issues wasn’t a threat to our national security.)
Point taken.
I agree with the “lowest moment” part, but I still bristle at any comparison of Carter’s inaction and inability to do anything to even the playing field with 1979 Iran, with GW’s strategy of taking the fight right back to the bastards of the world.
Addressed above.
I don’t judge any of them on where they were when crap goes down. I judge them on their response, or lack thereof.
Against Al Gore or John Kerry? Yes. Al Gore’s 2000 campaign lies stacked too high for my sensibilities, and his denials regarding his involvement in the Clinton’s 1996 illegal campaign fund raising activities were not plausible in the slightest. And John Kerry was just too inconsistent in style and substance. I also found his attitudes towards our Military unacceptable for a war-time President.
I hope my answer would reflect yours if I tweaked the question as such:
A percentage of Americans believe that
Saddam Hussein9/11 wasresponsible for the 9/11 attacksan inside job. Are you one of these people?Likewise.
Don’t. I cringe when I reread the misspellings in my own writing.
Right back at’cha.