Bush and terrorism?

Question

I keep reading how people say that Bush is doing a good job because there hasn't been another attack within the US since 9/11. I'm not arguing either way, just against this logic. It was eight years between the two attacks on the WTC, so by these same people's thinking, Clinton did an awesome job, there were no attacks for the rest of his presidency. your thoughts?

you know, I hadn't even thought about the attacks in Britain. they weren't being attacked by Al Qaeda back then, now they are.

je t'adoreGIR, we never did find bin Laden.

Answer 1

It's a ridiculously stupid argument. How many times in the 225 years prior to 9/11 were we attacked by foreign terrorists? To say the war on terror is working because it's been 6 years since then without an attack is completely illogical.

Answer 2

There were a serries of attacks in the Clinton years (and, for that matter a few in the Reagan years), but they were overseas. The same is true of the Bush presidency, there are still attacks going on, just not here.

And, if you count 'self starters,' there have been attacks, and attempted attacks, here - just very minor ones.


Al Qaeda /does/ seem to like to strike around transitions of power. The recent attacks in Brittain, for instance, the near-election-time Madrid bombing, and the two WTC attacks were both in the fist year of a presidency.

It may well be that the first year of the next President's term will see a major Al Qaeda effort.

Answer 3

Actually, if you look that the long history, the US has been hit by a major foreign terrorist attack every 7~9 years, going back to the 1970s.

So, I don't think Bush should get any credit for not blowing the average and having another one SOONER than expected.

Answer 4

after 9/11 The Patriot Act was issued by congress and bush to help prevent and combat against terrorism. Since then there has been bombings in london and such but no real effects like 9/11 major issues, so most critics would say it has done well.

opposers to the patriot act say it invades privacy because of the way they go about communications, satelites and phone wiring to obtain info

what seems ironic is even with the help pf high tech satellites and technogoly safeguards, spys, top secret info and agency help we have not been able to find Osama Bin laden!

Answer 5

Unless you can read the minds of the terrorists and foresee their actions, who really knows? We might have another attack next week. Maybe we won't have another one for two more years.

It's any ones guess. I'm not being paranoid when I write this and don't spend my life crippled with fear. Facts are facts.

Answer 6

I think you might be taking it out of context. When we were attacked on 9/11, we entered into a whole new era of problems in the world. Since then, there have been several bombings, attacks and attemped terrorism abroad. When that statement was released (and others like it) it was in reference to the current situation, not the 90s. We live in a completely different world than we did 10 years ago, in order to uderstand what they're saying you've first got to understand that.

Answer 7

I live in Canada and our medias don't cover the news from the same point of view as in the States. In my province most people here think that HE'S the biggest terrorist.

Answer 8

I would have thought his top priority after nine-eleven would have been to secure our borders. It seems it's still not important. Where is OBL?

Answer 9

The Anthrax attacks don't count because that was domestic.

Answer 10

dont try to confuse us with real facts.