So, is the war in Iraq really keeping us safer?

Question

like the GOP talking point of "fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them here", or is it because of a combination of airline security, homeland security, and immigration officials doing what Republicans voted against when Clinton was in office, and continued to ignore the first 9 months of Bush's first term?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071024/ts_alt_afp/usterrorismlistpolicesecurity

would we really need to turn people away, or have immigration catch them getting off their planes, if they were really staying in Iraq?

it appears, that some people have a problem reading links, or even thinking about the situation.
If "we are fighting them there, so we don't have to fight them here" was accurate, they wouldn't be getting on planes or boats to come here, because the War in Iraq they should be staying there and fighting right??

Answer 1

Time again eh?

Today, some Republicans claim President Clinton "did
nothing" to combat terrorism. Back then - when they might
have prevented the 9/11 attacks - Republicans blocked or
stalled all of the anti-terrorism proposals above. First, they
stone-walled for months despite Clinton Administration
warnings. Then, the GOP watered-down key provisions.

Finally the Republican Congress passed S.735 "A bill to
prevent and punish acts of terrorism, and for other purposes."
It became Public Law No: 104-132 when President Clinton
signed it, despite his and others' concerns that the
Republicans watered down the bill too much.

As CNN reported: "Congress on Thursday passed
a compromise bill ... a watered-down version of the
White House's proposal. The Clinton administration
has been critical of the bill, calling it too weak.
The original House bill, passed last month, had deleted
many of the Senate's anti-terrorism provisions...." See:
"Congress passes anti-terrorism bill," CNN April 18, 1996

Republicans weakened and blocked anti-terror legislation
several times, sabotaging Clinton Administration efforts to
keep us safe. President Clinton and his administration never
stopped working to combat terrorism and kept pushing the
Republicans for adequate anti-terror laws.

Other Clinton Administration anti-terrorism legislative
proposals include: The Comprehensive Antiterrorism Act
of 1995, The Counter Terrorism Technology Research Act
of 1995, The Antiterrorism Amendments Act of 1995,
The Effective Death Penalty and Antiterrorism Act of 1995,
and the Senate and House versions of The Omnibus Counter
Terrorism Act of 1995.

According to CNN, Republicans refused to cooperate with
President Clinton's efforts to protect us from terrorist attacks:
"July 30, 1996 President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday
to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before
its August recess. But while the president pushed for quick
legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance
against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.

"Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, doubted
that the Senate would rush to action before they recess this
weekend. The Senate needs to study all the options, he said,
and trying to get it done in the next three days would be tough.
One key GOP senator was more critical, calling a proposed
study of chemical markers in explosives 'a phony issue.'"
See: "President wants Senate to HURRY
with new Anti-terrorism laws," CNN July 30, 1996:

When Republicans couldn't prevent
executive action, President Clinton:

-- Developed the nation's first anti-terrorism policy,
and appointed first national coordinator.
-- Stopped cold the planned
attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously.
-- Stopped cold the planned
attack to blow up UN Headquarters.
-- Stopped cold the planned
attack to blow up FBI Headquarters.
-- Stopped cold the planned
attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington.
--Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Boston airport.
-- Stopped cold the planned
attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY.
-- Stopped cold the planned
attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge.
-- Stopped cold the planned
attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania.
-- Tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda
through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the GOP).
-- Brought perpetrators of first World
Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.
-- Did not blame Bush I administration for first WTC
bombing even though it occurred 38 days after they had
left office. Instead, worked hard, --- even obsessively
-- and successfully -- to stop future terrorist attacks.
-- Named the Hart-Rudman commission to report
on nature of terrorist threats and major steps to be
taken to combat terrorism.
-- Tripled the budget of the FBI for counterterrorism
and doubled overall funding for counterterrorism.
-- Detected and destroyed
cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries
-- Created a national stockpile of drugs and
vaccines including 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine.
-- Robert Oakley, Reagan Counterterrorism Czar says of
Clinton's efforts "Overall, I give them very high marks" and
"The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama"
-- Paul Bremer, Bush's Administrator of Iraq disagrees
slightly with Robert Oakley saying he believed the Clinton
Administration had "correctly focused on bin Laden. "
-- Barton Gellman of the Washington Post put it best,
"By any measure available, Clinton left office having given
greater priority to terrorism than any president before him"
and was the "first administration to undertake
a systematic anti-terrorist effort."

Here, in stark contrast, is part of the Bush-Cheney anti-terrorism record before September 11, 2001:

-- Backed off Clinton administration's anti-terrorism efforts.
-- Shelved the Hart-Rudman report.
-- Appointed new anti-terrorism task force under
Dick Cheney. Group did not even meet before 9/11.
-- Called for cuts in anti-terrorism
efforts by the Department of Defense.
-- Gave no priority to anti-terrorism
efforts by Justice Department.
-- Ignored warnings from Sandy Berger, Louis Freeh,
George Tennant, Paul Bremer, and Richard Clarke
about the urgency of terrorist threats.

-- HALTED PREDATOR DRONE
TRACKING OF OSAMA BIN LADEN.

-- Did nothing in wake of August 6 C.I.A. report
to president saying Al Qaeda attack by hijack of
an airliner almost certain.
-- Bush - knowing about the terrorists' plans to attack
in America, warned that terrorists were in flight schools
in the US - took a four week vacation.
-- By failing to order any coordination of intelligence data,
missed opportunity to stop the 9/11 plot as Clinton-Gore
had stopped the millennium plots.
-- Blamed President Clinton for 9/11.

Answer 2

We have stopped a number of attacks on US soil. By us being in Iraq has not helped stop terrorism in the US, better intel has stopped terrorism in the US, not the war in Iraq. If any thing we have created more people to take with the terrorist. We aren't fighting terrorist. Were fighting extremist in Iraq The real terrorist are very well thought out and plan for years who to attack us.

Answer 3

This 'war' has so many arms and legs that it would be impossible to say anything about the effect of it and be accurate. Basically all we 'know' is opinion....the Bush Junta says 'we're safer' and the right wing talk show nitwits agree. In real life there's no possiblity of being 'safer' because there's no benchmark to compare too. We can project out a bit....what's the best case? What's the worst case? What's most likely? What least likely? Even there it mostly opinion as there are few facts. Certainly nothing even close to reality is leaking out of the White House....the congress can't get Bush to reveal anything. Serving generals tell us what the Bush administration tells them to say...all is well! Retired generals are 180 out from that. My take is that we're only safe 'right now'! Ten minutes from 'now' everything can turn around. The 'war' produces at least a dozen possible new enemies everyday. If even one of them is a serious threat that means that about 30 enemies a month..guys that have the means, the motive and the opportunity to enter the US and cause a 'disruption'. If only one in the next year or two or three causes a major disruption then how safe are we? Only as safe as you can be in a fool's paradise! So, no..we're not 'safer', or 'more' safe however the grammar of it goes!

Answer 4

In a perfect world, yes, we wouldn't have to fight there here, but lets be realistic. If someone decided to pick on a group of people in one country or a neighborhood of same thinking countries, but this is a group that has international ties, friends and support, how could we think they would sit back and do nothing ?
Don't we send missionaries to other countries in need ? contributions to charities to other countries in need ? hell, we even give foreign aid to countries that hate us. Point is,, terrorists can't take us on head to head, they will lose. they are trying guerrilla tactics doing the hit and run scenario but that only has limited effects. You can't win a war that way. So all the sympathizers that want to act but also want to hit America where it counts are apt to try and come to America and do their worse where it will hurt us most.
It was Iran for instance that pulled the strings on the Beruit marine barracks bombing in the 80's, 911 was bad enough but that wasn't the only time terrorists tried to blow up the twin towers. They attempted it in 1993.

Answer 5

Go over to Iraq, and see the dirt bags yourself. See all the terrorist acts, and all the devastation, the good people who want to evolve and feel like equal human beings, but still living in fear, listen to the preaching in the streets about killing Americans, and just imagine the worst, most inhumane acts of torture....things you CAN'T even imagine, and then you answer your own question. Yes, my friend, yes, we are safer.
Oh- and if Clinton wasn't sitting on his butt, pushing aside....blatantly ignoring all the Intel he was receiving about Iraq, and Afghanistan....Osama and Saddam, choosing NOT to act, only worrying about which White House Intern he was going to screw, President Bush wouldn't have had to do what he did....or at least it could have been done and over with by now, or at least closer to being over.

Answer 6

Yes. At least its helping. Iraq is part of the general strategy for the War on Terror. Whether you want to admit it or not, that strategy is working. There hasn't been another 9/11. There hasn't been another terrorist attack since 9/11. Part of the reason why is that they are all focused in on Iraq. They're spending what money and resources they do have on fighting US forces in Iraq, not training terrorists to hijack airliners and fly them into skyrises. Even if there were a major attack tomorrow, the strategy would still be working as numerous plots have been stopped.

Your link has nothing to do with your question. You're simply stretching reality.

If we pull out of Iraq, the terrorist win a big battle. Winning a big battle emboldens you. They would have a lot of manpower and resources to dedicate to attacking the United States again and to use in Afghanistan. This is all simple stuff.

As for your references to Clinton's bill, you're simply wrong. And I doubt you know any of the details of the original bill or th bill that passed. Yes, Clinton's anti-terrorism bill was passed. Two things were removed:

1) Chemical Tag Agents. Clinton's original bill called for all US manufaturers of chemicals that could be used in explosives to place inactive tag agents in those chemicals. Republicans rejected these tag agents for two reasons: A) It was completely redundant. You could already trace chemicals based on their composition. B) The funding for these tag agents didn't go directly to the companies involved. The funding went into a general government fund that could have been used for any number of things. Its was wasteful spending. Slightly wasteful in what the money was spent on. Completely wasteful in how the money was spent.

2) Clinton wanted to expand federal wiretapping. Yes, that's right. Clinton wanted to expand federal wiretapping to allow unwarranted wiretaps on all DOMESTIC calls. That's the key difference between Clinton's wiretaps and Bush's wiretaps. Bush wiretaps only apply to INTERNATIONAL calls, either originating from overseas or directed overseas. That's a detail liberals always ignore when criticizing the Patriot Act. Clinton wiretaps, on the other hand, could have been used on ALL phone calls in the United States. So if Bush's wiretaps violate the Consitution, as you liberals love to claim and base your entire "Bush is a fascist" argument on, how in the hell can you justify Clinton's wiretaps? I call hypocritical bull****.

Once again, you've proven how hypocritical liberals have become. You will do and say anything to undermine a sitting President and assassinate a sitting President's character. Truth does not matter. Facts do no matter. Honesty does not matter. Only your agenda matters. Consequences be damned.

Answer 7

Well considering how many times we were attacked when Clinton was in office, once on our home ground and several times abroad, and how he had the power to stop 9/11 had he not been distracted you wouldn't be asking this! There is no way you are going to pin this on the GOP! Since 9/11 we've not been attacked anywhere in the world unlike the previous 8 years so we evidently are doing something right!

Answer 8

Not only it is not making us safer, it is making us less safe... this is what internal reports within the Bush Administration have actually said over the past year.

It disgust me at the lack of morality when I hear that phrase, "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here...". Are Iraqi lives somehow less than other lives? After all, they didn't ask us to come 'liberate' them. They are innocent victims in this madness.

Answer 9

You know terrorists DO try to get on planes,boats,trains,etc,right?Most of them are in Iraq taking potshots at our troops and putting bombs on the ground,but some are trying to plant bombs here.So we need to be prepared for anything.

Answer 10

YES, If we back out now and comeback home....it wouldn't end...they would just start over again, and then we would have to go over there again, and fight.

if they stay over there now...they can get rid of it forever.

The whole thing about ppl hating Bush is dumb.
These ppl are saying they hate bush because he decided to fight iraq.

WELL he does not make that decision...The council thing does(i forgot what it is actually called)
and even if it was his choice to fight or not, he would have fighted anyway, because OTHER COUNTRIES THOUGHT THAT IRAQ HAD NUCLEAR WEAPONS ALSO!

Answer 11

absolutely not, it is having and will continue to have the opposite effect.