why do people praise bush because there hasn't been another major terrorist attack?

Question

it's not like terrorist attacks were an everyday occurence before bush got into office.

about 3000 americans were killed on 9/11. the last time 3000 americans were killed in america by foreign adversaries was during the war of 1812

Answer 1

and your point is what, that 9/11 was bush's fault? what about the first wtc bombing, or the embassy bombings, or the attack on the uss cole? can i blame clinton for those?

Answer 2

Good question. Its absurd to insinuate that there have been no terrorist attacks. There have been attacks all over the world, March 2002 in Israel, May 2003 Casablanca, March 2004 Madrid, the list goes on and on. Also, there are only two attacks on American soil that can be attributed to Middle-Eastern terrorism, the first and second attacks on the WTC buildings. Only two attacks reaching American soil since the first known muslim terror attack in 1953. Thats an average of one terrorist attack hitting American soil every 20 years or so. That being the case, its ridiculous to assume that since we haven't been attacked since 9/11, we are somehow doing better than we have in the past, especially considering the fact that terrorist attacks all over the world have not decreased at all.

Also, please stop blaming Clinton for terrorist attacks. Its not his fault entirely, neither is it Bush's (although Bush has made quite a bigger mess of it). Its the fault of the entire government, from the D.O.D. to the C.I.A., and from the Legislative to the Executive branches. It's ludicris that we bend intelligence reports to the breaking point to tie Iraq with al-Qaeda and claim they have WMD's when it is CONFIRMED that several families in Saudi Arabia fund terrorism and their own defense dept. simply do nothing about it! This is not heresay, this is not rumor, this is not conspiracy theory, this is documented FACT. If we really wanted to stop terrorism, we'd be stuck in a war with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, not Iraq.

Answer 3

Because they're trying to hide the fact that their policies will cause blowback and lead to another attack (well, there have been many attacks on Americans in Iraq).

There were no terrorist attacks prior to our rejection of our traditional non-interventionist foreign policy during the 20th century. Now, there have been 2 major attacks in a decade (9/11 and London).

Answer 4

Well, in reality this is all our opinion. We can't say anything about others answers. Well here is another way to judge if your answer is right or not. Ask yourself if you could hold the whole country together. I mean we should be grateful for what he has done, but there are things we have controversy on that Bush has done. But we should praise him, due to the fact that not having terrorist is a darn good thing!!

Answer 5

There haven't been any further terrorist attacks in this country because the drug dealers/Smugglers/Coyotes are first in line at the border.

In San Diego, there have been several indictments and convictions of Border Patrol agents, Immigration agents and other enforcement agents who have aided and abetted the drug trafficking trade through San Ysidro, Tecate and Mexicali.

The terrorists turn in line will come up soon.

Answer 6

No, in reality there is no longer something that would desire to help his acceptance as he's accountable for each little thing it is happening. (no longer me) that's what Hollywood thinks and by skill of ways which one is next to be voted off the island? the biggest pass press is heading for an iceberg. it relatively is been actual in previous couple of elections that, the voters rally for the underdog. So Dubya's low rankings advise republicans would be out in stress. whilst the Dem's. would be whining approximately something or yet another that they only could get elected to, to the perfect option. i will wait and see for myself, as political history is with regard to the main mundane repetitive mire.

Answer 7

Well, wouldn't you be blaming him if there HAD been?

You can't have it both ways.

And you need to do a little research on the first WTC attack - under Clinton's watch. Many people believe that, had Clinton reacted more strongly, 9/11 would not have happened. I think it's impossible to say that, but I also can't discount the idea, either.

Answer 8

Because there haven't been.

To name but a FEW:

Terror on Clinton's watch;

-- The 1993 World Trade Center bombing that killed 6 and injured 1,000
-- The 1993 Mogadishu firefight that killed 18 U.S. soldiers
-- The 1995 Saudi Arabia car bomb that killed 5 U.S. military personnel
-- The 1996 Khobal Towers bombing that killed 19 U.S. soldiers, wounding 515
-- The 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa that killed 231 citizens, 12 Americans and injured 5,000
-- The 2000 USS Cole attack in Yemen that killed 17 U.S. sailors, wounding 39

Answer 9

Agressive foreign american policy was the major cause for the attacks on america.

Answer 10

Oh THAT cracks me up since this "president" has fought tooth and nail to keep our borders open and undefended.

The ONLY reason there hasn't been another attack is, the terrorists simply haven't gotten around to it yet.

Seems to me that the terrorists have bigger fish to fry in Europe right now, since that is where they are concentrating their efforts.

Rest assured, with Bush in office, if they want to hit us - they will.

Answer 11

well, it's like them believing in God because someone must have created the universe. they never stop to ask the tougher questions, since they don't have or are unwilling to have the imagination to think for themselves, as is essential for a well-run republic