Why do republicans do it?

Question

Why do they cite the fact that there hasn't been a terrorist attack since 9/11?

9/11 happened under the noses of a republican mayor, governor, congress, supreme court and president?

How much more evidence do you need that republicans are inept at handling terrorism?

Pitacki and Guiliani really did nothing after the '93 attack.

Clinton warned the incoming administration about Bin Laden and Bush did nothing. He had intelligence reports that sited warnings and didn't do ANYTHING. He went on vacation.

Pitacki and Guiliani really did nothing after the '93 attack.

Clinton warned the incoming administration about Bin Laden and Bush did nothing. He had intelligence reports that sited warnings and didn't do ANYTHING. He went on vacation.

Remember all the 'wag the dog' comments the republican congress made? Give me a break he didn't do anything.

Don't forget there were major attacks in Britain and Spain.

Track record for Dems? They have barely been in power.

THE WORST TERRORIST ATTACK EVER happened under total republican power.

Robert M-
Should I point out that 2973 people died on 9/11?
190 in Madrid? 52 IN London? Countless Iraqis?

Should I hold you to your own standards?

I never once said Clinton was innocent. I'm simply pointing out the flaws in Republicans terrorism story.

Answer 1

They do it because it sounds good. Politics is a popularity contest, so like the beauty queen wanting to solve world hunger because it sounds like a nice thing to do, Republicans want people to believe that since there were no successful terrorist attacks on US soil since the last one, they have been successful at stopping them. They have been no more or less competent at dealing with terror attacks than Democrats. Simply put, in a free country, it's just not terribly difficult to execute a terrorist attack. There are simply too many targets to protect. But I'd rather be free and risk the miniscule chance of dying in a terror attack, than give up my freedom in the hopes of reducing this miniscule chance even further.

The big problem is that Americans don't seem to understand the patience that these terrorists have. The last major attempt on US prior to 9/11 was the 1993 WTC bombing. it's possible that the Millennium Bombing was a planned major attack, but even if it was, that was 7 years after the WTC bombing, and the 9/11 attacks were 8 years later.

It seems to me that Islamic terrorists like to set the American agenda, and once set, they are content to wait for the next government before setting the agenda for the new government with a new attack.

It may well be that we have not had an attack because we have not had a new government (Presidential administration), which would make me we wary about being in a target area in 2009.

Answer 2

Republicans cite the apparent lack of terrorist attacks as a way of proving how effective they have been in the "war on terror". There have been several botched attempts in the US. The latest was a plot to cause havoc at JFK airport. There was a bunch arrested acmonth or so ago that were going to shoot up an army base. The attempts are being made, but there is not an elaborate network of terrorists working together, with unlimited funding and resources to attack the U.S.
Terrorist attacks are more common in the middle east, and still happen regardless of the "war on terror". Several Iraqi politicians and judges have been killed over the last year and the borders of Iraq seem to be quite easily crossed. U.S. borders are apparently not too secure either.
Terrorism is as old as national rivalries and will not be defeated by some campaign or war, no matter how massive.

Answer 3

Wait a second. The planning occurred under Clinton. And how many times were we attacked during Clinton's two terms?? The Cole, Marine Barracks, first attempt on the World Trade Center, etc. Need I go on? Good lord people!! At least make a viable point once in a while!!

Answer 4

You want to know the real reason, most people are stupid. They don't realize that a terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11 in the United States is very rare. You have a far better chance of getting shot on your way to work than being killed by terrorists. Terrorism makes big headlines and therefore is a good way to get people riled up.

Answer 5

There have been attempted attacks but alert citizens have reported them to the FBI and they took it from there. The so called "patriot" act was not used.

Some pathetic cons say "Well it was planned under Clinton". So what! Clinton had things under control. His people in the pass down from one admin to the other informed the Bushies about Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and what they were up to but the Bushies chose to ignore it. Remember Clinton left office in January and the attacks didn't happen until September.

Answer 6

There was never a big deal with terrorism in this country before 9/11.
It about 10 years between trade center attacks.
So Clinton didnt get osama .
I think its worse that bush could have had him but diverted $700,000,000 away from the Afghan war to invade Iraq, A country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and even said Osama isnt a priority!!!!

Answer 7

Idiot question.

The federal agencies and "experts" didn't change all that much between administrations.

WTC was hit during each term.

Under Clinton, they didn't prevent it, and ignored, or blew, chances to cut future attacks at the source.

Under Bush, they prevented further ones after 9/11, even as he squanders resources in Iraq.

Meanwhile, Clintons Security Advisor (and later, Kerry's pick) Sandy "Burglar" steals and destroys terrorsm-related classified documents relating to Clinton's term.

Answer 8

wow sonny, you obviously don't know very much and you obviously aren't military. you say that everything is Bush's fault and he did nothing while clinton had this all figured out? yeah right, he is what caused our military to go strait to H*LL. he closed down so many military bases all over the world( which is what made me move to America) and caused sooo many troop to drop out and retire earlier than they normally would have. plus clinton is the one who planed this whole thing. he is one of the worst things that could have ever happened to our country. Bush on the other hand is doing a perfectly good job and has been and shouldn't be blamed for any thing. since you aren't military you wouldn't be able to understand and I'm mot going to take the time to explain, so please get your facts strait before you start blaming our president ,who keeps you safe at night, with things for no reason.

Answer 9

So tell us what did clinton do to protect this country????? He didn't even have the B*LLS to go to NY after the 93 bombing, and do you know why???????? hillary said he may not be welcomed for the fact he was a deserter in the military.


Here is a list of your buddies work.

· February 1993. The first World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured more than 1,000;

· March 1995. Bombing of the U.S. Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan. Two American diplomats killed;

· November 1995. Bombing of U.S. military headquarters in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Seven U.S. military personnel killed;

· June 1996. Khobar Towers truck bombing in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia killing 19 and injuring 200 U.S. military personnel;

· November 1997. The murders of five American oil-company employees in Karachi, Pakistan. Believed to be revenge for a U.S. conviction of Pakistanis for the murders of two CIA agents;

· August 1998. Simultaneous bombings of two U.S. Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania in south Africa killing 263 and injuring more than 5,000; and

· October 2000. The bombing of the destroyer USS Cole in the Yemeni port of Aden, killing 17 and injuring 39 U.S. sailors.

A total of 319 innocent Americans were killed and more than 6,200 injured in terrorist attacks carried out during Clinton's tenure in the White House.

Your right GW must be at fault. NOT

Answer 10

A better question is "Why didn't Bill Clinton do something about it when he was President?" You blame the "Republicans", and so do I. But while the blame is being passed around, let's blame all parties who had knowledge and failed to act on it. If you want the truth, the CIA is more to blame than anyone. They have muddled around in the Middle East for a long time, and have managed to accomplish very little, except getting a lot of people mad at us.